Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Windfall Levy

Mr. Heppell: What estimate he has made of the number of women who will benefit as a result of the windfall levy. [32493]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): It is estimated that 500,000 women will benefit from the child care initiative that is partially financed from the windfall levy. In addition, every young woman unemployed for more than six months will, from April, be offered the chance of work and training. Soon, lone parents with school-age children will be offered advice, help and information about work. Others with school-age children will also benefit from the £1.3 million invested from the windfall tax in the new schools capital programme.

Mr. Heppell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that the level of child care available in the past 18 years has restricted employment opportunities for many women? Will he guarantee that, when he considers Treasury policy decisions, he will take the needs of women into account—as he has done with child care policy—so that they are part of the main stream and not an afterthought, as they have been for the past 18 years?

Mr. Brown: That is exactly the Government's position. We will take into account the needs of women in every area of economic policy. Our child care policy has three aims. We want to make child care accessible, which is why we have announced an initiative of £300 million for 1 million after-school places to help young children. We also want high-quality child care, which is why we have announced with the windfall levy an initiative to train child carers that will cost £100 million. To make child care more accessible, we increased and improved the child care disregard in our first Budget. For the first time, this country has a national child care strategy.

Mr. Gibb: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that increasing the cost of employment through a

minimum wage will not reduce the number of jobs, how can he claim that reducing the cost of employment will increase the number of jobs?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised the minimum wage, because the Conservative Government, by abolishing the wages councils, penalised hundreds of thousands of women. The hon. Gentleman should consider the experience of America, which not only has a minimum wage but has been able to raise it without any adverse effect on jobs. It is the Conservative party that wants us to return to the dark ages.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many women in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom will welcome the moves that my right hon. Friend has made, especially to increase the amount of out-of-school child care. Will he also ensure good-quality and affordable child care for under-fives? Many women with young children would like to go back to work but are unable to do so, because of the high cost of good quality child care.

Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. From April, for the first time, new money will be available for the child care initiative that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is launching. My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the importance that we attach to high quality child care. We want a new generation of young people and others to become properly trained child carers in registered facilities so that we can guarantee to every mother—indeed, every parent—that their children will be safe in the new provision of child care.

Domestic Savings

Mr. Lansley: What estimate he has made of the domestic savings ratio in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [32494]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The pre-Budget report gave the latest projections. The Government's policy is to encourage savings for investment in the future and that means, among other things, creating the conditions of economic stability and low inflation. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Lansley: I thank the Chief Secretary for his reply. If his policy is to encourage savings, his tax on savings will do the reverse and contribute to a reduction in personal savings in 1998 compared with 1997. Will he see the error of his ways and abolish the tax on savings above £50,000 and thereby contribute to an increase in savings instead of a diminution?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should bear two things in mind. First, during the 1980s, when the Government he supported were in power, the savings ratio dropped dramatically, and was negative for a number of years. This Government are determined to encourage savings, which is why we are putting in place the long-term economic stability that is an essential precondition of giving people the confidence they need to save. The Government are introducing measures that will help people to save in future.

Mr. Winnick: Will not one group of people have a great deal of money to save—those who have benefited


substantially from the privatisation of the railways carried out by the previous Government? Bearing in mind how much the taxpayer has lost—billions of pounds—would it not be fair to apply a windfall tax to those who have benefited in such a way? The sooner that windfall tax is introduced, the fairer it will be for the country as a whole.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the way in which the Conservative Government sold off many of the former nationalised industries at knock-down prices, enabling many people to benefit in a way that could not have been imagined, was scandalous. We introduced the windfall tax on the privatised utilities, the nature and scope of which was made clear at the time. The windfall tax that we imposed has been widely supported, not least because the money has been taken away from those who obtained gains without earning them and is now being applied to the new deal, which is giving new hope to thousands of people throughout the country.

Mr. Fallon: Why did the Chief Secretary originally tell the Investors Chronicle that a Labour Government would not tamper with existing PEPs and TESSAs? Will he apologise for breaking that promise, or will he consider attaching to next week's Budget bundle a series of numbered apologies for each of the new taxes and broken promises since 1 May?

Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to mention 22 tax rises, which of course he knows all about. Our manifesto was clear and we have kept to it. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who I now discover misquoted me on Monday, that they should be careful about taking words out of context.

Monetary and Economic Policy

Mr. Boswell: When he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the interaction of monetary and economic policy. [32495]

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has many meetings with the Governor to discuss a range of matters.

Mr. Boswell: Now that the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee have revealed that its members are split equally between the inflation nutters and the doves and that we might as well have stayed with the Gordon and Eddie show, will the Minister tell the House whether his sympathies would have been with them if they had increased interest rates for the sixth time since the general election, thereby paving the way for tax reductions in the Budget, or whether he is relieved that they have kept rates as they are to give him a measure of cover for the tax increases that we expect?

Mr. Darling: First, the fact that the Monetary Policy Committee's proceedings are open and published shows the value of allowing a range of people to consider the inflationary pressures on the economy and to come to a considered view. Secondly, long-term interest rates are

now the lowest they have been for 33 years. The last time they were this low, I was in primary school and Harold Wilson was in No. 10.

Mr. Sheldon: rose—

Hon. Members: And where was the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He was there, on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Sheldon: I am looking forward.
As the euro is to be widely used by companies in this country, not least those in the retail trade, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it would be advantageous to shadow it at some stage? If he agrees that we should, how would he suggest doing it?

Mr. Darling: I do not think that it would be appropriate to do that, but my right hon. Friend is right in the sense that this country has to prepare for the introduction of economic and monetary union in Europe. It also has to prepare itself for the possibility that we shall join that currency at some point, perhaps at the beginning of the next Parliament. He will know that the Government are putting in hand the necessary preparations so that this country can make that choice—preparations that were never made by the previous Government, because they were so hopelessly split on the issue.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister will have noticed that as, in the past two days, there was further talk of a higher interest rate, the pound strengthened again against other currencies. Does he accept that the pound is far too strong, causing chaos for manufacturing industry and for agriculture? Is it an objective of the Government to get the pound down to a saner parity?

Mr. Darling: The latest predictions are that exports are expected to continue to rise, but let me make an important point. Industry—even people who are worried about what is happening to the exchange rate—accepts the fact that it is necessary for the Government to ensure that we get long-term stability. The last thing anyone wants is a return to the boom and bust or the high levels of inflation that we experienced in the past.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that other factors, apart from interest rate rises, have led to the appreciation of sterling. I repeat that it was necessary for the Bank of England to take the appropriate steps to counter inflationary pressures because the previous Government had ignored the warning signals in the months leading to the general election. That will not—indeed, cannot—happen under the new, more open and transparent procedures that we have set up, which will benefit industry and the whole country.

Mr. MacShane: I invite my right hon. Friend to cast his mind back to 12 months ago, when interest rates, inflation and sterling were bobbing up and down like a yo-yo, as they had done in the previous five years. No business man could plan more than six months ahead because of the Tories' irresponsible stewardship of the economy. May I invite my right hon. Friend, despite the


difficulties that the level of sterling is causing exporters, to maintain the new policy of having a Monetary Policy Committee and to take every measure to ensure stability? Every business leader I meet welcomes the new policy, and wants no return to the instability of the Tory years.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right, in that every business wants stability more than anything else. Many business leaders said to us when we were in opposition—and say to us now that we are in government—that if the Government do nothing else but deliver stability and low inflation, that will benefit their business. Of course, we have also done other things to help business. For example, we introduced the current rate of corporation tax—the lowest ever.

Mr. Lilley: In their pre-Budget discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England, have the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor discussed any plans to raise taxes that were not included in the Labour party manifesto before the most recent general election? Does the Chief Secretary recall the speech made by the Chancellor before the election, in which he said:
At the general election we will spell out clearly our tax plans so that the British people know what we intend to do"—
no confusion, no deceits—and that
Apart from the windfall tax our plans do not require any extra taxes"?
Has he honoured those pledges?

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is ill placed to criticise us on the subject of election promises, because people will remember very well that the prospectus on which the Conservatives fought the 1992 general election was abandoned in every subsequent year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is that we made an explicit promise not to increase the top and basic rates of income tax, that we kept that promise in my right hon. Friend's first Budget last year, and that we shall keep that promise for the rest of this Parliament—as we told the British people.

Mr. Lilley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answer tacitly recognised that he betrayed the pledges that he made to the British people? When did he, or the Chancellor, spell out clearly to people with pensions that they proposed a £5 billion tax on their pension funds? When did he spell out to students that they planned a tax on higher education? When did he spell out to rural motorists that they planned three increases in motor taxation in 16 months? And when did he plan to spell out clearly to home owners that they intended to impose the biggest ever council tax increases?

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful, because the Government in which he served introduced the fuel escalator and cut mortgage tax relief when they said they would not. The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that, just before the general election, he proposed pension changes that would have resulted in a huge increase in expenditure for ordinary people. We have kept every promise that we made in our election manifesto. That is the clear difference between the Labour party and the Conservative Opposition.

Third World Debt

Mr. Purchase: What plans he has to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries. [32496]

Mr. Timms: What discussions he has had with Church leaders about the problems of highly indebted developing countries. [32510]

Mr. Gordon Brown: Since my Mauritius mandate statement to Commonwealth Finance Ministers last September, I have held a number of meetings with religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Hume, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and many others. The United Kingdom firmly supports debt relief for the poorest, most indebted countries and is seeking an early solution to many of the problems experienced by them—which includes finding a solution to the debt problems of Mozambique. The Government take their responsibilities in international debt reduction seriously.

Mr. Purchase: That is a very welcome statement that illustrates the clear difference between the approach of Labour, with its proper ethical policies, and the policies of the Conservatives, which have contributed considerably to the problems experienced by developing countries. I am sure that the Chancellor will recognise that it is equally important that we persist with policies that support continued and sustainable development. We must recognise that, historically, inappropriate technology has been applied in developing countries for the purpose of extracting profit, especially in agriculture. Cash cropping has drained many such economies. We must have world policies—to which I know my right hon. Friend will contribute and on which he will lead the charge—to avoid the continuing problem of mounting debt in those countries.

Madam Speaker: I did not hear a question. I remind the hon. Gentleman to ask a question in future.

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. The Government established the Department for International Development, the first act of which was to make a shift in the budget towards poverty relief for Africa. The Government have introduced export credits conditional on not selling arms and taken a millennium initiative to ensure that countries are in the process of debt relief by 2000. The Government will work with other countries to ensure that there is effective debt reduction, particularly in Africa.

Mr. Timms: I am pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend that the Government are supporting the campaign, which has been backed by Church leaders and others, for a millennium-linked initiative on debt under the banner of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what support he has gathered from other Governments for the welcome lead that he has taken on this issue?

Mr. Brown: I am pleased to say that, at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference last year, all countries in the Commonwealth supported our initiative. The G7 statement, issued only a few weeks ago


following discussions in London, expressed support for the idea that countries should be in the process of debt reduction by 2000.
I am grateful to religious leaders and to the Churches, not just in Britain but worldwide, for leading the campaign for action on this great moral issue by the millennium. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to work with the Churches in their areas to ensure that there is strong public opinion in favour of action, which is already making a difference internationally and will help us to secure the necessary debt reductions.

Mr. Edward Davey: As more than 95 per cent. of debt owed by third-world countries to the United Kingdom is export credit debt, what plans does the Chancellor have to reduce it? Since 1 May, the Government have issued a military export licence to a company selling arms to Mozambique. How can the Government claim to support education, health and economic development in Mozambique when they encourage such exports?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, at the September Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference, we made it very clear—via a statement from me and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the President of the Board of Trade—that future export credits to the highly indebted countries will be conditional on exports not being arms. We have managed to secure that very big change in policy over the past few months. Bilaterally, about £1.2 billion in debt has been waived in the past 25 years. Britain has taken an important initiative over many years on that issue.
I hope that the Conservative Opposition will support the Churches in their efforts, instead of standing apart from them. We need international support for our efforts and we are seeking to gain it. Mozambique is the latest country that should be securing debt reduction—20 per cent. of its money is going in interest payments and only 4 per cent. is going on education and health—and I believe that we can make progress there in the next few weeks. As my hon. Friend may know, Britain has already put down its share of money to secure that debt reduction in the next few weeks.

Petrol Duty

Mr. Amess: What representations he has received on the use of petrol duty rates as a mechanism for achieving environmental objectives. [32497]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The Chancellor has received a number of representations which will be taken into account in reaching decisions for his Budget on 17 March.

Mr. Amess: Will the hon. Lady clarify the Government's policy on duty on fuel, as the Government seem to be giving different messages to different audiences? Is it the Government's intention to continue to increase duty on fuel to meet environmental concerns and reduce the number of people who drive cars, or are they the motorist's friend and the friend of the oil industry—although that was certainly not the case three weeks ago when I attended the annual oil industry dinner?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that that meeting was not in Basildon, which is only a short drive from Southend—which I understand the hon. Gentleman did at some speed.
The Government have a clear commitment to reduce CO2 emissions, which are directly linked to fuel consumption. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Government who introduced the escalator at 5 per cent.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will recall that the changeover to lead-free petrol was greatly assisted by increasing the differential and reducing the price of that fuel. Is there not a case, on environmental grounds, for encouraging vehicles powered by liquid petroleum gas by reducing duty on that fuel?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, there is considerable discussion about clean fuels, building on the excellent record of the previous Government in favouring unleaded fuels over leaded ones. Mechanisms are already in place to assist the shift, especially to clean diesel, to deal with particulate emissions. The Government are constantly reviewing the development of clean fuels—an item that needs consideration in the interests of environmental protection.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Financial Secretary agree that it might be more acceptable to motorists, especially those in rural areas who are suffering from the escalating increase in petrol, if there were some compensating reduction in, for example, vehicle excise duty on fuel-efficient cars, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Will she confirm that she promised last July that the Government would produce a Green Book to be published alongside the Red Book at the time of the Budget? Is that still the Government's intention? Will it be published with the Red Book on Budget day?

Mr. Skinner: The Liberals have a policy for emptying toilets and wiping their backsides.

Dawn Primarolo: But is it a green policy?
The hon. Gentleman asks about rural motorists. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is working on the transport White Paper which will examine transport as a whole and the development of an integrated transport strategy in particular—something the previous Government did not have when, for example, they deregulated the buses and removed millions of bus routes from rural communities.
With regard to green policies in the Budget, it has been made clear in the House that the Government will include statements on their environmental policies.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced his intention of increasing the duty on fuel by at least 27p per gallon in next week's Budget. Does the Minister agree that that will be the third such increase in 16 months? The Government have a policy of tax early, tax often. Does the hon. Lady agree also that this scale of increase raises the price of transport for everyone and imposes an especially heavy burden on the rural motorist, for whom a car is a necessity and not a luxury? Does the hon. Lady agree that these increases are being imposed not for environmental reasons but simply to raise more revenue? Will she and her colleagues have a rethink before next Tuesday's Budget?

Dawn Primarolo: That is rich, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government


who introduced the 5 per cent. fuel escalator. Unlike the Conservative Government, the Labour Government are committed to reaching our CO2 targets. We shall abide by the international agreement arising from Kyoto. The 5 per cent. escalator donates 2½ tonnes towards that target for the year 2010.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 1 million cars, vans and trucks powered by liquid petroleum gas in Italy, and only 2,000 in Britain? Will she and her colleagues continue positively to examine fiscal measures to encourage the use of more environmentally sensitive fuels?

Dawn Primarolo: I was not aware of the situation in Italy. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to examine these important matters.

Tax and Expenditure

Mr. Brady: If he will make a statement on the distribution of the tax burden and public expenditure between different income groups. [32498]

Mr. Darling: An annual article is published by the Office for National Statistics in "Economic Trends" which describes the effects of taxes and benefits on household income. The last one was published in March 1997.

Mr. Brady: I look forward to reading that interesting article and future editions of the publication. Does the Minister understand that the Labour party won last year's general election only because it persuaded the electorate that a Labour Government would not increase taxes on middle England? Does he accept that abolishing PEPs and TESSAs, or putting tax on child benefit, would be an increase in tax on middle England? Will he now rule out any such taxes?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should recall that we won in middle England and everywhere else as well. The hon. Gentleman would understand why we won and the Conservative party lost if he read the annual report to which I referred, which shows that inequality increased throughout the 1980s.

Mr. Brady: That is not true. Everyone was better off.

Mr. Darling: It most certainly is true. The rate at which inequality increased in the United Kingdom in the 1980s was faster than in any other industrialised country except New Zealand.
The Labour Government are beginning to reverse that trend. We have reduced value added tax on fuel, for example, and that has helped poor people especially. We have introduced the new deal, which will help many young people and the long-term unemployed. It will give them hope and give them a job—something the previous Government would never have done. Our spending review will ensure that Government help and spending are focused so as to ensure that the people who lost during the Tory years gain during the term of this Labour Government.

Mr. Davidson: My right hon. Friend, like me, comes from middle Scotland. Does he agree that, if the

Government reduced tax in some directions, that would be immensely popular electorally? I think especially of introducing a policy of free beer for all the workers. If he were to cut duty on beer, would he ensure that the brewers and licensees were obliged to introduce lined glasses to ensure that the full measure was pulled for those who purchased drink? Of course, if the beer were free, people would not be so worried about lined glasses.

Mr. Darling: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend now agrees that Glasgow is middle Scotland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have heard his plea on behalf of beer drinkers. My hon. Friend will appreciate that he might have to wait a little longer before he receives a fuller answer to his question.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I tell the Chief Secretary that the Labour party did not quite win in Macclesfield? There is quite a lot of countryside in Macclesfield, and the countryside is an important part of the environment. Does the Chief Secretary accept that if he continues with his intention dramatically to increase the duty and tax on hydrocarbon oils—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the wrong question."] No, it is not the wrong question.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entirely in order. I know what he is getting at.

Mr. Winterton: I am immensely grateful, Madam Speaker.
Is the Chief Secretary aware that he is discriminating against people who live in the countryside, many of whom are on low incomes, and that the policy of increasing the tax burden on fuel will depopulate the countryside and make the position of farmers even more difficult—and perhaps close village pubs as well? Will he review the Government's discrimination against rural communities?

Mr. Darling: I agree that the Labour party did not win Macclesfield, although many people believe that the Conservatives did not win it, either. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place, and hope that he keeps up his good work in the Conservative party.
I shall make a number of points on the countryside. The first point, which the hon. Gentleman will not forget, I am sure, is that it was the Government he supported—or supported most of the time—who introduced the 5 per cent. fuel escalator. I do not remember many Conservative Members saying anything about it at the time. During their 18 years in power, the Conservatives did much to undermine the strength of rural communities: I am thinking of school closures, the threatened closure of post offices and the deregulation of buses, which had a devastating effect on public transport. I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this full well—that the tax burden increased during the previous Parliament, despite the promises on which the party that he sometimes supported fought the election.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Dr. Gibson: What plans he has to restructure the public sector borrowing requirement in relation to European monetary policy. [32499]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government have no plans


to restructure the public sector borrowing requirement in relation to European monetary policy. The Government's deficit reduction plan is in Britain's interest whether or not we participate in economic and monetary union.

Dr. Gibson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does she accept that many of my constituents consider it wrong that investment in Norwich City airport suffers and is curtailed as a result of the local government capital control legislation, whereas Stansted is not disadvantaged? Does she think it is time to review that, and that the European budgetary union conventions are a way forward?

Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the concern that he has consistently expressed about his local airport. I am happy to write to him on the specific matter relating to Norwich City airport.
However, any borrowing has to be paid for at some time, and the previous Government allowed public expenditure to get out of control. We now spend more on paying our debts than on our education system. When the Chancellor introduced his Budget last July, he made it plain that we will seek to reduce our deficit, with a view to moving into surplus in the medium term.

Sir Michael Spicer: Never mind European monetary policy; does the hon. Lady agree that it is the Government's duty to apply policies that are in the interests of this country? Having established that the overriding objective of the Bank of England is 2.5 per cent. inflation, will she confirm that the PSBR, fiscal policy and all other economic policies will comply with that overriding policy?

Mrs. Liddell: Fiscal policy is the responsibility of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman should realise. It is interesting that he says, "Never mind European monetary policy." He should take into account the fact that the Labour Government have taken measures since we were elected last May to improve this country's finances. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, the moves that we made in relation to the Monetary Policy Committee have resulted in the lowest long-term interest rates for 33 years, and, if I may say so, I was still in primary school 33 years ago as well.

Exchange Rates

Mr. Mitchell: If he will seek to achieve a more competitive exchange rate level. [32501]

Mrs. Liddell: The Government want a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability. The only sure path to long-term exchange rate stability is through sound macro-economic policies.

Mr. Mitchell: Yet is it not obvious to everyone, except four blind academics and ex-academics on the Monetary Policy Committee who have no contact with the real world, that the pound is substantially overvalued as a result of high short-term interest rates here, the deliberate depreciation of the deutschmark and the devaluation of Asian currencies? Does my hon. Friend agree that a 25 per cent. loss of competitiveness for manufacturing, which

provides 60 per cent. of our exports is, over a short term, not stability but instability that will lead to depression and deflation later this year?

Mrs. Liddell: As I told my hon. Friend on 17 February when I wrote to him on the matter, more jobs are lost as a consequence of instability. I in no way minimise the concern of British exporters over the strength of the pound, but the strength of the pound is a consequence of a variety of different factors. I return to the point that I have made previously to my hon. Friends—that it is important that Britain has economic stability so that companies can develop policies that make them truly competitive across the board.

Mr. Ian Taylor: One of the factors that will influence the exchange rate is the fiscal management of the UK economy. Does the Minister accept that one of the key factors is how credible our entry into the European monetary union will be at some point in the future? Will she urge the Chancellor, in his Budget next week, to set out a much clearer timetable, with an unequivocal commitment to entering monetary union, to allow the markets to prepare—and British industry to prepare so that it does not lose competitive advantage to a currency that will be used in 80 per cent. of our EU home market?

Mrs. Liddell: That is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I see that he is not wearing his European presidency tie today, which is perhaps unfortunate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made perfectly clear the five key tests that should be applied to ensure that if we decide to enter a single currency, we do so when that would be in Britain's best interests. The Government's present priority is to ensure that British industry prepares for 1 January 1999, because it looks as though there will be a euro zone and, because of the laxness of the Conservative Government who made the single currency the subject that dare not speak its name, we now have a job to do to ensure that British companies do not lose competitive advantage.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, during the past 18 years, Britain lost 40 per cent. of its manufacturing base, and that hardly any of that could be attributed to the high pound? Most of it was due to the fact that the Tory Government deliberately set about reducing the manufacturing base by closing down the shipyards, the pits and the steel industry. It is nonsense for those industrialists to say that they cannot make the profits they want, first, because they are paying the workers too much—and they are against the minimum wage—and, secondly, because of the high pound.
Most manufacturers, but not all, also benefit from buying cheap imports as a result of the value of the pound. Hardly any British manufacturer does not gather in imports. It is all about swings and roundabouts. The simplistic argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and some Conservative Members that devaluing the pound will solve everything, or words to that effect, is the biggest load of nonsense ever.

Mrs. Liddell: Needless to say, I agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude of Conservative Members the other night to the national minimum wage, to which my


hon. Friend refers, was interesting. The Government's policies are about stability and allowing companies, families and households to plan for the long term in a way that was denied to them during 18 years of Conservative government.

Value Added Tax (Continence Products)

Mr. Burstow: What plans he has to compensate the national health service for the additional costs arising from the removal of VAT zero rating for home delivered continence products. [32502]

Dawn Primarolo: The NHS is already fully funded for its VAT costs.

Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister explain why a written answer that I received recently from the Department of Health clearly stated that the cost of additional VAT being imposed by the Government on the health service is £9 million a year? In a press release before the general election, the Labour party rightly criticised the imposition of VAT on continence products. Why are the Government now only too willing to impose such a tax and, as a consequence, cause great difficulty to the NHS and to elderly and disabled people?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman simply has it wrong. There was no imposition of VAT on the national health service. The NHS is fully funded for its VAT costs. Since the general election, the Government have given the NHS an additional £1.5 billion. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an order that closed an avoidance mechanism being used by private hospitals, which took considerable resources out of the Exchequer. No patient will suffer extra VAT costs as a result of that order, because there are none. Incontinence pads are being treated as part of the provision of health care, so there is no extra burden on the NHS. Some hospitals were using an avoidance mechanism and were therefore being funded twice by the Exchequer. That mechanism was removed.

Value Added Tax (Fuel)

Ms Stuart: What representations he has received from pensioners' organisations on his reduction in VAT on fuel. [32503]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): We said in our election manifesto that we would reduce VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced that measure in his July Budget. It is another example of the Labour Government fulfilling their promises.

Ms Stuart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's action to reduce VAT to the lowest level possible, from which some 18,000 pensioners have benefited in my constituency alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that pensioners are the most vulnerable group and the greatest victims of the previous Administration's imposition of VAT on fuel?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct on all those points, and the measure will have been welcomed by pensioners in her constituency as it was by pensioners

throughout the country. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that, when the Conservative party was in Government, it introduced VAT on fuel. Together with the Liberal Democrats, we prevented them from increasing VAT to 17.5 per cent. and, in line with our manifesto commitment, we reduced it to 5 per cent. Pensioner households spend approximately 50 per cent. more of their income on fuel than ordinary households and they therefore benefit most from the measure—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is disrupting the proceedings.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that Age Concern backed my private Member's Bill on the wind chill factor, which would have given extra support to the poorest pensioners on income support in the coldest parts of the country? Will the Minister ensure that his Department makes provision for next year—it is now too late for this year—and backs my Bill so that those pensioners get the support that they deserve? Originally, it was not my Bill but that of a Labour Member, who tried to push the Bill through the House before the general election. Is it not a case of telling pensioners one thing before the general election and letting them down badly afterwards?

Mr. Robinson: The whole House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated concern in these matters. He will remember voting for VAT on fuel when his party was in government. This Government have introduced winter fuel payments of £20 for ordinary pensioners and £50 for pensioners on income support. That goes further than the recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Taken together, the measures that we have introduced—on the abolition of the gas levy, the reduction in VAT and the winter fuel payments—mean that pensioners are £100 better off on average, and £130 better off where they are on income support.

Duty Free

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What the reasons are for proceeding with the abolition of duty free within the European Union in 1999 in advance of harmonisation or equalisation of taxation rates in member states. [32504]

Dawn Primarolo: The Council of Finance Ministers decided unanimously in 1991 to abolish duty-free sales for travellers within the European Union because it saw them as an anomaly within the concept of a single market. However, because of the effects of immediate abolition, and to give operators time to adjust, the Council decided to allow duty-free sales to continue after 1 January 1993, until 30 June 1999. The harmonisation of duties and taxes was not a factor in that decision.

Mr. Prentice: Will not millions of holidaymakers be mystified that duty free is to be abolished in July 1999, given the huge differences in duty within the member states and the fact that proceeding with the abolition could cost 100,000 jobs across the European Union? In this country, 30 million people use duty-free shops annually. I urge my hon. Friend not to be neutral, but to use the presidency of the European Union to argue forcefully for


the measure to be postponed until there is full harmonisation of duty across the EU, which I suspect will not happen for many years.

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not object to a study into the impact of the abolition of duties being undertaken, particularly if it examines the nature of the successor regime. Any postponement requires unanimity, however, and there is no suggestion that unanimity of action exists among the 15 member states.

Mr. Wilkinson: Might not Her Majesty's Government at least try to secure a postponement, now that they hold the presidency of the European Union and, supposedly, have such great influence over their EU counterparts? Do they take pride in the fact that the measure will cost hundreds of jobs in a number of companies in air transport, shipping and retailing that are already experiencing extreme competitive pressures. How will the British travelling public benefit from abolition of duty-free sales? Surely it will lead to increased fares.

Dawn Primarolo: I take no pride in the decisions that the Conservative Government made, or their commitment on the phasing out of duty-free. The Government will not stand in the way of a study being conducted into the likely impact on jobs of abolition, but there is no unanimity on the matter at the moment. The hon. Gentleman should direct himself to the question why Conservative Ministers agreed to abolition in the first place.

Individual Savings Account

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What he estimates will be the cost to holders of personal equity plans to transfer them to ISAs. [32505]

Mr. Darling: The costs will depend on the final shape of the scheme.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Chief Secretary for that illuminating reply. Other policyholders will be affected if costs are passed on to them. The uncertainty about extra charges that may be levied if people transfer from PEPs to ISAs is preventing them from investing in PEPs in the first place. That uncertainty is causing many problems: should people invest and expect a second charge for their policies, or are they expected to depend on blind trust?

Mr. Darling: I shall be more illuminating. If the hon. Gentleman sticks around a little longer, he might receive the answer he wants.

Economic Cycle

Mr. Alan W. Williams: What assessment he has made of the correlation between the boom and bust phases in the economic cycle and the value of the pound, and the time lag involved. [32506]

Mr. Darling: There is no simple relationship between the economic cycle and the exchange rate. The

Government's policies are designed to end the cycle of boom and bust, and to create conditions for sustained growth and high employment.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend and the Treasury team keep telling us of the importance of stability in bringing about an end to boom and bust cycles, but such stability will be impossible given the current high exchange rates, because manufacturing industry is being crippled by the high value of the pound. Does he agree that part of the Treasury's job is to create an economic climate in which interest rates could fall to 3 per cent., like those of our European partners, and the pound could fall in value to DM2.60 or DM2.70, so that in five years it would be possible to join the single currency?

Mr. Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but as I told the House earlier, the most important thing for the Government is to ensure that we have the right economic conditions for a stable economic platform on which to build and so that we will achieve low inflation. That is what manufacturing industry—and everyone in the country—wants. As I said earlier, there are already encouraging signs that, because of our reforms—not just the measures in my right hon. Friend's Budget last year but as a result of a general feeling of confidence in the Government's commitment to stability and the reforms that we have made to the Bank of England—long-term rates are now falling. I repeat—they are the lowest they have been for 33 years. I believe that the path on which the Government have embarked is the right path, and the only path in the long-term interests of this country.

Dr. Cable: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it was concern about economic stability that led 11 countries to prepare themselves for first-wave entry into EMU? Does he welcome the fact that as many as 11 countries are now ready? Will he tell us what economic policy decisions those 11 countries will be party to as members of the euro X committee to which Britain will not be a party?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the decision about who will join EMU will be made during April and May. As my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made clear, we want to ensure that if monetary union goes ahead, it is a success, because that must be in the interests of the whole of Europe and this country. Whether we are in or out, what happens in EMU will affect us. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, we are beginning to put in place the necessary steps to ensure that this country can make a genuine and real choice about whether we join at the appropriate time.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that, even after two centuries of theorising and libraries packed with books on economics, Governments still have remarkably little influence on the trade cycle? The one thing that does seem to be indicated by history is that, if one gets into difficulties, it is easier to get out of them with a floating currency rather than a fixed currency.

Mr. Darling: I remember sitting more or less where the hon. Gentleman is sitting some years ago listening to


a 45-minute speech from him on that very point. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, and I note them with great interest.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising interest rates is not the only way to deal with inflationary pressures in the economy? Will he assure the House that other methods will be sought in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Darling: All sorts of pressures lead to inflation, including wages and general economic conditions. I shall repeat an important point; it is in the interests of this country—every single one of us, whether in industry or not—to ensure that we have low inflation and that we get away from the damaging cycle of boom and bust that has bedevilled this country for most years since the war. We are determined to avoid that, and everything we do will be geared towards that end.

Tax Equalisation

Rev. Martin Smyth: What steps he has taken to achieve equalisation of taxes in the European Union. [32507]

Dawn Primarolo: This Government have taken no steps towards equalising direct tax rates in the EU. The Government believe that fair tax competition is positive and helps to maintain Europe's external competitiveness. The UK has already persuaded other member states of this and the benefits of fair tax competition are explicitly recognised in the code of conduct agreed by ECOFIN on 1 December 1997.
There is already a significant degree of harmonisation or approximation of indirect taxes. The last Government were responsible for much of this: they agreed minimum rates for VAT and excise duties.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Early-day motion 949 deals with the increase in tobacco taxes. Does the Minister accept

that that is having an adverse effect on our people and on their jobs without helping people's health? Also, about £1 billion a year is being lost to the Treasury through smuggling.

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the report produced by the European Union on excise duties, particularly with regard to tobacco, is now considerably overdue. The Government are pressing hard to obtain publication of the report. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government take very seriously the problems of smoking and smuggling.

Mr. Townend: I am grateful to have the opportunity to ask the hon. Lady a question, as she does not have the courtesy to sign her replies to me.
The House knows of my lifelong experience in the drinks industry. I was interested when the hon. Lady talked about a level playing field. Does she accept that smuggling into this country is growing dramatically and that the big danger is not only that the Government are losing revenue, but that organised crime is progressively taking over the smuggling? We have had recent incidents at Dover in which firearms have been used. Does she agree that the only way to solve the problem is to have more harmonisation, and will the Government start to move towards that in this year's Budget?

Dawn Primarolo: I find it incredible that Conservative Members who supported a Government who for 18 years did nothing about smuggling now try to saddle this Government with solving the problem immediately. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we take smuggling and excise fraud seriously. It was this Government who set up with the industry the review on tobacco and alcohol smuggling and fraud. The report before us will inform the Chancellor's judgments in his Budget next week.

Business of the House

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 16 MARCH—Second Reading of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 17 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 18 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 19 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 20 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows:
MONDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 24 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
WEDNESDAY 25 MARCH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the second to fifth reports from the Select Committee on Health on children's health, followed by a debate on the third report from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the proposed strategic rail authority and railway regulation, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill (First Day).
THURSDAY 26 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill (Second Day).
FRIDAY 27 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 25 March there will be a debate on bananas in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on aid to shipbuilding in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 25 March:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 5357/98, Bananas. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xvi (1997–98).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Documents: 11165/97 and 11167/97, Aid to Shipbuilding. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-ix (1997–98).]

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for giving the House two weeks' business, as is becoming her habit and practice.
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is able to give the House any information about the possible dates for the Easter recess. I understand, because she explained them last week, that there are problems in knowing exactly how the pattern of legislation will pan out, but, as I pointed out two weeks ago, The House Magazine printed a start date for the recess and she discreetly neither confirmed nor denied it on the day. It is possible that she may be able to tell us something today.
Once again, I make my weekly request for a debate in Government time on the national health service. The right hon. Lady has announced for Wednesday 25 March a debate on the second to fifth reports of the Health Committee on children's health. That is extremely welcome, but I must remind her and the House that the Government have not provided time for a single debate on the national health service since 1 May. It is no good the right hon. Lady stating in the Government's defence that there have been seven statements on the national health service since 1 May—we know that, but, because there have been so many statements, and because the Government have introduced so many changes to the national health service, it is time for a debate on those and wider issues relating to the national health service. I do not understand the Government's reluctance in that respect.
May we have an early debate on the Government's policy on human rights in China? Yesterday, in Prime Minister's Question Time, it was clear that the Prime Minister had a rather shaky grasp of the issues. It might be helpful if we could have a debate led by the Foreign Secretary on those and other features of the Government's ethical approach to foreign policy.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee and on the third and fourth reports that came out earlier this week. The reports are welcome, as they propose sensible reforms to make the proceedings of the House more comprehensible and effective. Has the right hon. Lady detected any misgivings among hon. Members about the proposals? If she has, what reassurances has she been able to provide?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady asked me about the Easter recess. Early in January, I gave an indication of when I expected the Easter recess to be. I cannot yet confirm the precise dates, but I expect that the Easter recess will be the week of Easter Monday and that the House will return on the following Monday, but I am not yet in a position to confirm that. I hope also, in the not too distant future, to give some indication in respect of the Whitsun recess, but that is rather more difficult, as we have to consider the progress of business.
The right hon. Lady asked me again for a debate on health. I stress that there is no reluctance on our part to have such a debate. Indeed, we would be happy to discuss the extra £1.5 billion that we have found for the health service. We have a very heavy legislative programme and, at the moment, there are no slots available. I should point out, however, that, in the past 10 days, the Opposition chose the topics of four debates, and on all those occasions they avoided discussing health matters, so perhaps it is they who are running scared.
As for human rights issues in China, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that we believe that the European Union's policy of dialogue with


China, supported by practical assistance, is more likely to bring about real improvement in respect of the rights of ordinary people. We should like to find more time for foreign affairs debates, but that will not be possible in the near future.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks about the Modernisation Committee. I also thank all members of the Committee for the consensus that we were able to develop in respect of the changes that we recommend to the House. The reactions to our reports so far—of course, it is early days—have been entirely positive, and I am very pleased indeed with the way in which they have been received by hon. Members.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend find time to look at the questions—and their answers—that I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about a major problem with the computer system in her Department? Will she find time very soon for the House to debate a number of problems that are arising in the public sector in respect of massive computer systems that are probably not capable of performing the tasks that are being asked of them? It would be very dangerous if the House were to continue to pour money into machinery that was not capable of working efficiently and which would leave many important functions of government in considerable disarray if they failed.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall look at the questions tabled by my hon. Friend. I am aware of the possible difficulties in that particular area, not least because it was a massive IT project involving a great number of systems, and I understand that it was always expected that early plans would need to be tested and reviewed as the programme moved forward. That is what is happening. Obviously, we have to be careful that the systems we introduce work. If my hon. Friend has specific points she wishes to raise, I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate, but it is questions to the relevant Department a week on Monday.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Following our representations, has the Leader of the House had any success in getting earlier answers to ministerial letters and parliamentary questions?
On the subject of railways and the takeover of Great Western Trains, what has happened to the right hon. Lady's assurances given last week in response to representations on that subject from my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? Is it not time that there was a statement from Ministers on the shenanigans within rail companies and the huge profits being made by individuals at taxpayers' expense?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady comment on the fact that, with a statutory instrument today on Scottish water charges, the Government appear to have decided to follow the precedent set by the previous Conservative Government of subsidising water charges in Scotland, but refusing to do so for areas in England such as the south-west, which has water charges that are 40 per cent. higher than those in Scotland, yet we are told that there is no taxpayers' money available? Is it not time that Ministers explained that in the House?

Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, if he wishes to have an SI discussed, he knows the procedure and the discussions that can go on through the usual channels.
We alluded to rail problems last week, and I think that everyone is very concerned about what is happening in some parts of the rail industry. I announced that there would be a debate that includes rail regulation a week on Wednesday, when the hon. Gentleman may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Ministerial correspondence has been raised by several hon. Members, including some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I have been looking at the issue in some detail. The picture is an extremely mixed one, with some Departments performing better since the general election than previously and others having difficulties because of the huge increase in the number of letters received; we have clear evidence to back that up. That is not to say that I do not think that things can be improved: I am writing to all Cabinet colleagues on that matter to seek improvements, and the Cabinet Office is also taking it up at official level.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow may well be the last day for debate on the private Member's Bill to abolish fox hunting? Is she aware that, on our side this week, many hon. Members got excited about the prospect of sitting all night to get the National Minimum Wage Bill through? They would quite happily not call for Government time, but sit after 10 o'clock for, say, two or three nights to complete the Bill and frustrate the wishes of that minority opposite. Then we could send the Bill to the House of Lords, and if those hereditary peers—the fox hunters and the Tories—turned up in large numbers to thwart the Bill's progress, that would give us a perfect excuse to get rid of the lot of them.

Mrs. Taylor: I will be here again tomorrow, as will many of my colleagues, to vote on that Bill. The responsibility for the Bill's fate rests with the Conservative Members who seem determined to flout the overwhelming will of the House and the British people. I know that that causes a great deal of concern, and I hope that those who are worried about the issue will make their views known to Conservative Members.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the provision of local justice? Is she aware that, in my constituency, people are concerned about the threat hanging over the magistrates courts in Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock? We see this as yet another attack on the countryside, depriving rural areas of services—something the Government allege they are not trying to do. However, we see the proposed closure of these courts as another service being taken from the countryside.

Mrs. Taylor: That is not a new issue, and I do not recall the hon. Gentleman protesting about these matters when his party was in government. If he has specific points he wishes to raise, questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department take place on, I think, Tuesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Monday."] It says Tuesday here. He will be able to raise these issues, but I will pass his concerns on to the Minister.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the funding for the millennium link to


reunite the Forth and Clyde canal and the Union canal? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still a shortfall of about £7.8 million, and, unless sufficient funding is found by next Friday, the project may have to be abandoned, which would mean the loss of a great opportunity to create 4,000 permanent jobs and 1,500 construction jobs, plus an annual injection of £55 million into the economy of central Scotland?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made a strong point, and I am sure that he will wish to pursue it further with Ministers. There will not be time for a debate, but perhaps he can raise the matter at Question Time on Tuesday.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an early debate on the allegations that are made concerning Secretaries of State and conflicts of interest in terms of their constituencies, families or whatever? Does the Leader of the House think it is somewhat bizarre for a Secretary of State to instruct a permanent secretary to conduct an investigation into such matters? Does she believe that to expect an impartial inquiry under those conditions is somewhat optimistic? Does she agree that some sort of independent review mechanism would be preferable in getting to the bottom of the allegations?

Mrs. Taylor: I am surprised that a former Minister should cast doubt on the independence of a permanent secretary.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent comments by Steven Norris, the former Tory Minister, that the previous Government should be ashamed of their record on state education? Is she further aware of the report of the Audit Commission today, which outlines just how much all schools—including those in well-off areas—have been failed by the previous Government's policies'? Will she arrange for an urgent debate so that the House can assess how far state education was undermined by the previous Government?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We welcome the Audit Commission's work, which has highlighted the need to focus on the differences in standards produced by LEAs, even if they are working in similar circumstances. I cannot promise a debate on that specific point, but she will be aware that education matters will be debated in the House in the near future, and there may be opportunities to discuss the report.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the erstwhile leader of her party, the Euro Transport Commissioner Mr. Kinnock, is seeking to sue Her Majesty's Government if they pursue bilateral negotiations with the United States—as is their sovereign right—over air service agreements across the north Atlantic? In view of that, can the Minister for Transport come to the House at the earliest possible date to make a statement, or, preferably, can we have a proper

debate on civil air transport, which could take in the proposed abolition of duty free shopping and the reduction in capital allowances for airliners?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there will be an opportunity for such a debate in the near future. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue specific points, it is tabling day for questions to that Department on Tuesday.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Has my right hon. Friend, like me, read in the newspapers today that the protector of the Camelot interest in the lottery has not only been dismissed for not doing his job, but will be compensated for not doing his job? To make matters worse—and this is a bit rich—the money will come from the lottery's good causes fund. Can she ensure that someone will come to the House to explain what on earth is going on? Has not the time come for a debate on whether it is time that someone else ran the lottery?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that my hon. Friend is technically correct—I do not think that the man was dismissed; I think that he resigned to ensure that there was full confidence in the lottery. If my hon. Friend wants to raise the issue, he must either apply for an Adjournment debate or try to be called at Question Time on Monday.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on greater public access to the Palace of Westminster? In view of the justified public expenditure on its magnificent refurbishments, will she consider putting the Lord Chancellor's apartment on the line of route, so that, in the manner of aristocrats welcoming American tourists to their homes, the Lord Chancellor—one of our greatest ornaments—could give tea to visiting Americans?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand that plans to allow access to the Lord Chancellor's apartment are complete and will be implemented—there will be access. Shortly after becoming Leader of the House, I made inquiries about whether we could increase public access to the whole building at weekends and in the recess. Work is now under way to examine the feasibility of that idea.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: As the Government have delivered on devolution for Scotland and Wales and are developing a strong regional policy, will my right hon. Friend consider the prospects for allowing our debates to have regional dimensions? I understand that time has been given to regional debates in the past.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many hon. Members, representing different parts of the country, might find such debates extremely valuable. However, he will be aware of the pressure on time, so I do not think that he would give such debates priority over our legislative programme. Nevertheless, I shall bear his request in mind when time permits.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Leader of the House consider inviting to her excellent Modernisation Committee the people who run the radio programme "Just a Minute", so that they could suggest better ways in which to enforce the rules of no deviation


and no repetition? The Committee could then, perhaps produce better rules to strengthen your position, Madam Speaker and that of your colleagues.

Mrs. Taylor: The Modernisation Committee has not suggested a rewriting of Standing Orders along the lines of the rules of "Just a Minute". I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the Committee's report—I believe that hon. Members will agree that it suggests ways forward.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does my right hon. Friend recall telling me that time would not be the enemy of the fox hunting Bill if hon. Members—I think that she had in mind Conservative Members—behaved themselves? After last Friday, is not it as plain as a pikestaff that Conservative Members want to torpedo the Bill? I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the relevant Minister makes a statement to the House next week, saying, I hope, that time will be made available in this Parliament to ban blood sports.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that I will be in danger of repetition if I remind my hon. Friend of what I said on Monday—that time is not the enemy. As I said earlier, the responsibility for the fate of the Bill rests with those Conservative Members who seem determined to flout the overwhelming will of the House. It is not the case that, if the Government gave extra time, that would be the end of any problems associated with the Bill. I think that most people understand exactly what is happening.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is being very agreeable today. Bearing in mind her long-standing interest in education, will she arrange for a Minister from the Department for Education and Employment to make a statement on the decision that has been made by several county council local education authorities to abolish free school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time secondary education? While I accept that, once secondary education is completed, people or their families should start to pay, that decision is a dramatic change and is causing grave anxiety to people in my constituency's rural villages and to the All Hallows Catholic high school in Macclesfield, which does a wonderful job providing excellent education to youngsters from a wide area of east Cheshire.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and if he cannot weave that issue into one of the debates on the education Bills before the House, I will be surprised. He knows that, if that is not possible, his best option is to apply for an Adjournment debate.

Caroline Flint: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the regeneration of the former RAF Finningley site in my constituency? The site has already benefited from considerable public investment and has one of the longest runways in Britain. As it is in an area formerly dominated by the coal mining industry, it is seen by businesses and communities as key to the development of jobs and industries in South Yorkshire. I would welcome time for a debate on the subject.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows that I have said on several occasions today that the Government's legislative

programme is heavy and it is difficult to find time to debate all the issues that we want to, so I cannot give the assurance she wants. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is considering the bids that have been received for her local RAF station and is closely consulting other Government Departments, because it recognises the local sensitivity of the issue. I assure her that transport, planning and all other issues will be fully taken into account before a decision is made.

Mr. David Rendel: The incredibly damning report produced by the Public Accounts Committee on the Child Support Agency includes the sentence:
Unless firm action is taken, the work of the Child Support Agency will continue to bring unnecessary hardship and suffering to thousands of our fellow citizens.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is made available for a debate, so that the Government can explain whether they intend to take such firm action to get rid of the ghastly traumas being suffered, not only by the parents but by the children involved?

Mrs. Taylor: We made it clear when the Conservatives introduced the child support legislation that—while we supported it in principle—we had grave concerns about the detail. It is clear to everybody in the House that the previous Government's Child Support Agency scheme is failing to deliver what was hoped. We have had two debates on the issue so far, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. We aim to produce by the summer a consultation document containing our proposals for improvement; it is important that as many hon. Members as possible are involved in the consultation, because we all have examples of problems caused by the CSA.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the dire consequences of the previous Government's pension policy and, in particular, the comment made by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, almost exactly eight years ago, on 15 March 1990, when she told me that she "totally rejected"—her words—my premise that 1 million people could be mis-sold personal pensions? Now we know the awful truth—that up to £6 billion and possibly £10 billion has to be found to compensate those millions of people who face poverty in their retirement years. Is not the lesson from that awful experience that we can never trust the pensions market to the private firms again and that pensions must be based on the state earnings-related pension scheme—a good-value state scheme, with a great record?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the robust action that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has taken to deal with the problem. It is true that the Conservative Government created the problem, the Conservative Government ignored the problem and the Conservative party has never apologised for it. Owing to Government pressure, particularly the action of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, two thirds of the priority cases have now been resolved; previously, hardly any had been resolved. It is clearly a difficult, on-going problem, and my hon. Friend is perfectly right to lay the blame at the door of the


previous Conservative Government. However, even though it is tempting to have a debate, I am afraid that we cannot find time in the near future.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, while we understand that the Government's bad management of their own programme has led to a legislative backlog, that is no reason to deny the House of Commons the chance to debate the major issues of the day? Does she agree that Britain has a major interest in events in Kosovo, where a large number of women, children and old men were murdered on the direct orders of the war criminal Milosevic, and in the former Yugoslavia, where more that 8,000 British service men of all arms are stationed? Those events need to be debated in the House so that hon. Members have a chance to put their views to the Foreign Secretary, not least to see whether Milosevic should be indicted as a war criminal. Will the right hon. Lady see what she can do to fit such a debate into the Government's programme?

Mrs. Taylor: First, there is no legislative backlog; we are very much on target, although some days have been taken up, by agreement, with Bills that Conservative Members wanted to debate on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an important statement on Kosovo was made on Tuesday—unusually, it was made on an Opposition day because of the importance of the subject. It will not be possible in the very near future to find Government time for a debate, but it may be possible for the hon. Gentleman or others to secure an Adjournment debate, which has often happened on similar issues.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time that we had a debate on the way in which the Opposition Front-Bench team uses the research assistance provided to it out of public funds? In business questions a fortnight ago, the shadow Leader of the House claimed that I had criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for allegedly packing NHS trusts with political appointments, when I had said no such thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a problem, in that either the shadow Front-Bench team research assistants cannot read newspaper articles with words of more than one syllable or the shadow Front-Bench team cannot?

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance, without a debate, to set the record straight. On occasions, we need a full session geared into the weekly programme so that we can set the record straight about some of the allegations made by Conservative Members.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Eight weeks ago today, at Treasury questions, a Minister quoted pension return figures that I considered erroneous. I tabled a question, but I have not yet received a substantive answer. If the figures exist, I should have thought that it would be easy to provide an answer. Will the right hon. Lady find time next week for a debate on the length of time that Ministers take to respond to questions and on their inefficiency in doing so, so that I can raise the question of those figures, which I believe to be erroneous?

Mrs. Taylor: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not have an opportunity to raise that matter in the

debate on pensions that the Conservatives organised the other day. There are many opportunities to question Treasury Ministers—indeed, there were opportunities today.

Mr. John McDonnell: Given that the subject of human rights was raised in the Chamber today, may we have an early debate on the calibre of candidates chosen by the Conservative party to stand in local government elections? It has come to the attention of my constituents that my Tory predecessor, the racist Terry Dicks, has been selected in Runnymede to stand for local government. Hon. Members will recall that that creature went on a paid trip to Baghdad, at Saddam Hussein's expense, returned to the House and tried to justify Iraq's statement that the Kurds were not gassed in Halaji. He then supported the hanging of the Observer journalist Fazal Barzoft by Saddam Hussein. I would welcome an early debate to expose that character, who has yet again been selected by the Tory party.

Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my former colleague Terry Dicks as a racist? It sounds to me a most unparliamentary word to use.

Madam Speaker: Members are responsible for the comments that they make. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) referred to an individual who is not a Member of the House. I do believe that, when we make comments on anyone, whether they are a Member or whether they are outside, we should be very careful in what we say, and that we should be able to say those words outside this House and substantiate them. I cautioned Members on these matters only yesterday.

Mrs. Taylor: There is no ministerial responsibility for Conservative candidates in local elections.

Mr. Nick Gibb: As everyone knows, the decision making on the site of the new Welsh assembly has been a complete shambles, and the Secretary of State for Wales is even dithering about when and how to make the announcement. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales, when he finally reaches a decision, instead of making that announcement in a written answer or in a press conference outside the House, to come to the House to make a statement, so that all Back Benchers have an opportunity to question him?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep the House informed. The manner in which he does so must be for his judgment.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I echo the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for us to hold a debate very soon about the way in which the Tories ripped off so many pensioners? I should like to refer specifically to the National Audit Office report published yesterday, which showed that when the water companies were privatised, all the choice, best bits of the pension funds went to private firms, and they left the taxpayer with a bill of £400 million to prop up the ailing pensions for workers in the previously nationalised water service.

Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to arrange a debate on that matter, because the National Audit Office report shows


the ridiculous, outrageous waste of taxpayers' money by the previous, Conservative Government in their rush, driven by dogma, to sell off the water industry. However, as I have said on other occasions, although there is much for which we would want to expose the previous Government, we cannot always find time to debate all those issues.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 914 signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House is concerned about the unwelcome proposals to change BBC networked parliamentary programmes and views with great concern the proposals to cut back political coverage in the regions; greatly values the contribution to informed political debate by the BBC's regional weekly political programmes; urges the Corporation to retain and enhance these as a vital link between honourable Members and their constituents; and further urges the BBC to retain its regional reporting presence at Westminster.]
I believe that the BBC would be wrong to implement its proposals to cut regional political programmes, especially the political reviews that usually take place at the weekend, which are an important link between Members of Parliament at Westminster and their regions, showing what we do in the House and the importance of that work to the regions.
Although I support the BBC's plans for 24-hour news programming, it would be a mistake if that sucked away money that would usually be spent on political programmes for the regions. A debate in the House might show how much backing regional political programmes have from hon. Members.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. He knows that the chairman of the BBC has been in the House today to discuss those issues and the broadcasting of such programmes as "Today in Parliament" with hon. Members who have an interest.
I understand that my hon. Friends are always pleased to see the hon. Gentleman on his own regional television programme, and I am sure that his comments will be noted by those in the BBC.

Dr. Desmond Turner: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the recently published report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs entitled "Sewage Treatment and Disposal"? I agree that that is not the most obviously sexy topic, but it is of extreme interest to those who, like me, represent coastal constituencies, where sewage disposal is a matter of great public concern and an important public health issue. Therefore, it would be very helpful if we could debate the report at the earliest possible opportunity. Can the Leader of the House offer any assistance in that regard?

Mrs. Taylor: For the reasons I gave earlier, I do not think that I can hold out the prospect of an early debate in Government time. My hon. Friend will be aware that two Select Committee reports will be debated a week on Wednesday. The reports are chosen by the Liaison

Committee, so perhaps my hon. Friend would like to make representations to that Committee about the topics for future debates in that slot.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would prevail on her Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Health to hold an early debate in the House on nurse training, particularly in Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to allow such a debate, I ask that the Secretary of State be prompted to investigate the way in which nurse training in Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire has been conducted and how it will be dealt with in future.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a debate, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I am sure that the Leader of the House welcomes the fact that our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met representatives of the Hillsborough families last Saturday and has agreed to a further meeting. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the keen interest in Merseyside and beyond about when a debate will take place on Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny of evidence report. It is obviously important that that should occur as soon as possible. Is she in a position today to confirm that a debate will take place, and say when that might be?

Mrs. Taylor: That important topic has been raised several times during business questions. I have explained to my hon. Friends and others the difficulty of providing time for an early debate. I hope that, in the not too distant future, I shall be able to give an idea of what may be possible. However, I do not wish to hold out the prospect of an early debate on this matter, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

Mr. Tom Brake: Can the Leader of the House say when the Modernisation Committee will consider private Members' Bills, particularly the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill? What should happen when two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot agree their party line on an issue, leading one Conservative Member to ask, "At what point does a short speech become a long bore"?

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a question for the Leader of the House to answer. We are discussing next week's business.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), will the Leader of the House talk to Ministers about the time it takes to provide answers to written questions and about the quality of the answers provided? I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than a month ago, and I have just collected yesterday's Hansard in order to confirm the inadequacy of that delayed response. I put down a written question because it concerned a technical matter that was better suited to a civil service reply than an oral answer.

It deserved a proper response. If the Leader of the House looks at column 208 of yesterday's Hansard, she will see the inadequacy of the Chancellor's answer.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot, and do not intend to, have a debate on that matter. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said earlier that I would be writing to my colleagues about the difficulties experienced with delays in answering letters from Members. Variations on that complaint, including points about questions, have been drawn to people's attention. I have made it clear that I take that issue seriously—as I have during business questions on other occasions—and I explained earlier what I shall do about it.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell)—who has now left the Chamber—referred to my former hon. Friend Mr. Terry Dicks. Unfortunately, I have not been able to notify the hon. Gentleman of my point of order, but I think it right to put the matter on the record very quickly. The hon. Gentleman has paid Terry Dicks some £15,000 in damages and £52,000 in costs. Therefore, it appears that this afternoon we have witnessed a personal vendetta, using the protection of parliamentary procedure. I hope that you will examine this matter, Madam Speaker, and perhaps study the accusations that were made.

Madam Speaker: The point of order gives me an opportunity once again to deplore the personal attacks that are unfortunately being made with increasing frequency, not only on hon. Members but on individuals outside the House. I remind everyone here that one of our most cherished privileges is the freedom of speech, but that privilege, as I said only this week, has to be tempered with responsibility. Personal attacks enhance neither the quality of our debate nor the reputation of the House. Hon. Members should always bear in mind "Erskine May" which states:

Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
I think that those words are as appropriate today as they were when they were written.
Although the House is not full, I hope that those responsible will see that my words are brought to the attention of every hon. Member.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem arises on both sides of the House. For example, last week, the shadow Chancellor said that I had £356,000 in a pension fund. I went to the Fees Office the following morning to ask whether I could get hold of that money. I said that if I could get the cash, I could leave. The lady there said, "I'm awfully sorry, Mr. Skinner. If you retired today, you'd get something over £20,000." However, only the day before, the shadow Chancellor had told the House an untruth. Two newspapers printed the story, and I had to seek the services of a lawyer in order to get corrections.
I did not come to you, Madam Speaker, to whinge and whine, but it ought to be made abundantly clear that members of the Tory Front Bench are at it just as much as any Labour Back Benchers.

Madam Speaker: The words that I used were carefully chosen. They apply to all Members, whether or not they are Privy Councillors and on whichever Front Bench they might sit.
I was here when the exchange to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) refers took place, and I read the newspaper reports afterwards. I am delighted that his pension is not what was suggested; otherwise he might have taken his cards and gone home, and we would rather have him here than in Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: I could have taken a world cruise.

Madam Speaker: I hope you would take me with you.

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New clause 4

REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEMS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish an independent review of the advantages and disadvantages of the electoral system established under this Act, as compared to (a) an open list system and (b) the first past the post system, but excluding any consideration of party political advantage.
(2) The review shall commence no sooner than 12 months after the election date for the 1999 European Elections and shall report no later than two years after the said election date.
(3) The review shall be conducted under the auspices of a Speaker's Conference.
(4) The review shall be required to seek evidence from the public.
(5) "Independent" in subsection (1) means not subject to control by any political party.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 and insert—
'in one of the following ways—

(a) for a registered party;
(b) for a candidate listed as a member of a registered party; or
(c) for an individual candidate not listed as a member of a registered party.'.


No. 9, in page 2, line 2, after 'candidate', insert
',whether or not the candidate is a member of a registered party,'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 4, after 'candidate', insert
'not listed as a member of a registered party'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 4, at end insert
',with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party.'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 18 and insert—
'as follows:

(a) a quota for each party shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes cast for the party divided by the number of seats to be allocated, plus one;
(b) votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs;
(c) where the candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate is elected without transferring any surplus votes;
(d) where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate shall be added to until the quota is reached, the candidate is elected, and the number of votes cast for the party is reduced accordingly;
(e) this process continues until all seats have been allocated for each candidate in the order in which they appear on the list until the number of votes cast for the party is

zero, except where there are insufficient votes in the number of votes cast for the party to bring a candidate up to the quota, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes;
(f) if it is not possible to bring another candidate up to the quota required for election, the candidate with the highest vote who has not been elected shall be elected;
(g) where there is one seat to be filled and two candidates have the same number of votes, the candidate placed higher on the list shall be elected.'.

Mr. Clappison: The new clause and amendment No. 9 reflect our belief that the first-past-the-post system, which we currently use for European elections, has many advantages, and is certainly far better than the system that the Government propose in the Bill. We know that we have many allies in this, and we think that we may have some of whom we were not aware earlier but who may not be prepared to reveal themselves to us. However, we know that there is a widespread feeling that the first-past-the-post system has served the House well, and that it also serves the country well for the European elections.
The more we learn about the Bill, and the more we see of the Government's approach to it, the more we think that a review will eventually be called for and that it will be beneficial. It will prove that the first-past-the-post system does indeed have significant advantages over that which the Government are putting in place, not least because of what has happened with regard to closed and open lists. These are one of the least desirable features of the Bill, although it has many undesirable features.
When the Government first unveiled their proposals last October, there was widespread criticism of their adoption of the model with closed lists, whereby electors would not have the opportunity to express a preference between individual candidates of different parties—something which happens in some other systems which use a regional list.
I shall quote one of those comments, which I think puts the matter rather well. The Times stated:
This is bad for democracy and will be bad, eventually, for the parties too. The Government plans to introduce the worst possible kind of PR for the European elections." Its 'closed list' system allows voters no say over which candidate they want: they can merely vote for a party, which will then appoint its own placemen to the Parliament.
The proposal for a closed list earned few friends when it was debated on Second Reading in November. It was seen as a system whereby the Government were not prepared to allow electors to make a choice between different candidates, any more than they were prepared to allow their own party members the chance to decide the order of candidates themselves, which is something else to emerge during our consideration of the Bill.
We were not entirely surprised, given the criticism of and lack of support for the closed list system, when on Second Reading the Home Secretary indicated a willingness to listen to arguments for adopting a different system. The right hon. Gentleman chose to highlight a Belgian system. To be fair to him, he gave no guarantees at that stage; he said that he had an open mind. He put a paper on the Belgian electoral system in the Library.
The Home Secretary may now regret some of his comments.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): No.

Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not, but he will recollect that he chose to advance his consultation in a rather partisan way. If I remember correctly, he said that his was a party and a Government who were prepared to listen, including listening to the arguments. Perhaps that was not entirely wise. That seems to be so, given what has taken place since he made those remarks.
The Home Secretary might care to address the question why he chose the Belgian system out of all the systems that are available. A debate on that issue took place in part when the Bill was considered in Committee. The Home Secretary mentioned the Belgian system together with the Danish system. We would like to hear a little more from the right hon. Gentleman about why he chose the Belgian system rather than the Danish.
The Home Secretary said that he would be prepared to listen to learn how Members on both sides of the House perceived the Belgian system. I can assist him, because every Opposition Member, including probably the Liberal Democrats, thinks that the closed-list system is wretched and rotten. I would be surprised if many voices were raised in support of it on the Government Benches. When the right hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us how many representations he received in favour of the closed list.
We apprehend that not even Labour Back Benchers had much of an appetite for a system so alien to our traditions in this country. It is a system that would deprive the electorate of the chance to vote for an individual candidate of a party.
We know that some Labour Back Benchers tabled an amendment in Committee. These were the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).

Mr. John Greenway: Where are they?

Mr. Clappison: That is a matter for them.
The hon. Members for Stroud and for Southgate tabled an amendment, and argued in favour of it.

Mr. Robert Syms: It is interesting that the little rebellion that took place on the Government Back Benches to promote an open list seems to have disappeared now that the Home Secretary has made up his mind.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We know that some Labour Back Benchers originally wanted the Government to think again, and they tabled an amendment to enable the Government to do so. Were the Government listening to them, we wonder. How much weight did the Government give to Labour Members' representations? We suspect that the answer is, not a lot, and we take that view on some rather good grounds.
We now learn that, at more or less the same time, when Labour Back Benchers were tabling an amendment to enable the Government to think again about the closed list system and to think instead of having an open list system, the Government were not listening to them, but instead had commissioned a focus group to give them some ideas for the voting process. It is interesting that the group carried out its work at some time around 20 February, according to the documents that the Home Secretary placed in the Library, and reported on 28 February. The mechanics of how the group came about is a matter for the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary looks perplexed. The focus group reported to him on 28 February, and carried out its field work between 20 and 23 February. We do not know why it took place at that time. We wonder whether it was a last-ditch effort by the Government to justify the course they were taking. We shall listen with interest to the Home Secretary telling us about the representations he received in favour of the closed list system.
The Government did not listen to their Back Benchers, but chose instead to listen to the focus group. I suggest that, if Labour Members—I know that several of them are deeply interested in electoral reform—want to influence their Government, it is no use tabling amendments for the Home Secretary to answer in debate. They should write to Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., 71-73 High street, Barnet, Herts, and ask whether they can become part of a focus group. However, I advise them that they had better be careful when they make their application.
I have looked at the way in which the people in the focus group were selected—it was helpful of the Home Secretary to place this document in the Library. They were carefully screened, and, when interviewed, were asked whether they were a member of a political party, Charter 88, the Electoral Reform Society, and whether they were a local councillor, union representative or chairman of a professional organisation. The document says:
If yes to any of the above—close interview".
There is not much chance of them being listened to in the focus group, so they had better be careful what they say when they try to participate in it.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Who paid for the focus group?

Mr. Clappison: That is a good question. To be fair to the present Government, the previous Government sometimes commissioned focus groups to get responses on particular issues, but this is the first time that I have seen answers given to a focus group being cited as a reason for the Government to pursue a policy. The Home Secretary might correct me on that. The research was carried out at a late stage, and the Government were determined, apparently, to ignore their supporters.
This is a Government who set great store by the views of the focus group. The written answer that the Home Secretary placed in the Library shows that he and the Government relied on the group as a reason for continuing with the closed list system. His reply clearly shows that he was relying on its findings. He said:
the NOP study demonstrated most people vote for parties rather than individuals.


I am not an expert on focus groups or electoral research, but, as I read the group's document, I began to doubt whether that was the view of the focus group. Time and again, it seemed that the people who were approached by Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., who did not include anybody who might possibly have any interest in or knowledge of the subject, wanted a choice. When the systems were explained, the members of the focus group—there were only 48 at most—wanted a say over individual candidates.
There were difficulties. I read with some bemusement, in view of earlier debates, the comments of the focus group. It said:
Voters are generally unable to appreciate the implementation of the d'Hondt divisor unless a graphic example is demonstrated to them. With a textual description voters struggle.
Many hon. Members will say, amen to that. Someone plucked off the street in the west midlands or Surrey, which is where the survey was conducted, and told about the d'Hondt divisor would think that the questioner had taken leave of his senses.
4.30 pm
Notwithstanding the difficulties the focus group evidently had, I was struck by the fact that, time and again, it was in favour of being given a choice. I do not want to be partisan about this, and I am not an expert in focus groups, so the Home Secretary will be pleased to know that I consulted Professor Ian Maclean of Oxford university. I hope the Home Secretary will not mind, but I took the step of sending him a copy of the focus group document for his views as someone learned in these matters.
I asked Professor Maclean whether he shared my surprise at the Government's conclusions, and whether he thought that the Government were right in their assertion that the NOP study demonstrated that most people vote for parties rather than individuals. He said:
I cannot see that it demonstrated that, as it was not designed to demonstrate that one way or the other. The quoted remarks of focus group members include some on each side of that question. As it was a qualitative, not a quantitative, survey, adding up the responses on each side and taking the side which received more to be the majority would be an unsound procedure.
He went on:
The NOP study was designed to test which of the two systems focus group members preferred. It showed that they preferred the Belgium system to the closed list system.
That left me even more perplexed. I await the Home Secretary's considered views on the matter.
I do not know which is worse—a Government who are so arrogant that they trust exclusively the views of focus groups rather than the House of Commons, or a Government who are so incompetent that they get the views of the focus group wrong. The Government do not understand their own focus group, so heaven help us.

Mr. Richard Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my impression of the outcome of that survey, which is that a significant number of people wish to vote for a party, but that those who get involved with a system want to vote for individuals, and the Belgian system will satisfy both groups because it gives the option of party or individual?

Mr. Clappison: I hope that I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much when I give him our standard

health warning, which is that we think that the first-past-the-post system is the best. We said that at the beginning. From the rest of the systems, the Government have chosen the worst, without any reason or justification in logic.
The Home Secretary's logic is no better than his maths. His reason for not wanting the Belgian system is that it does not necessarily translate preferences for individual candidates into electoral success. It is somewhat strange that he should think that not necessarily translating preferences into electoral success is a defect when the system he proposes will never, by definition, translate individual preferences into electoral success, because it will be impossible to express any individual preferences. We should like to hear the Home Secretary's justification for that logic.
We would also like the Home Secretary to justify the exercise that he has been carrying out, which he described as consultation. If we strip away the NOP survey, there is precious little else in the way of justification for the course taken by the Government. The Home Secretary's written answer refers to what he describes as the "incurable weakness" of the Belgian system, which I have just described. However, he knew full well about that on Second Reading, and he told the House so. The Home Secretary looks puzzled, but I have here his comments on Second Reading. He made it abundantly clear that he was fully aware of that feature of the system.
Discussing voter preferences, the right hon. Gentleman said:
On the other hand, that is marginally more complex than the present simple system that we propose, and it is possible for a candidate low down on a party list to receive many personal votes—perhaps more than those of his or her party colleagues—yet still not be elected, because the weight of party votes helps those higher up the list."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 814.]
That is the self-same reason that the Home Secretary gave, in his written answer last Monday, for not adopting this system, yet he knew that all along, and told the House about it on Second Reading.
The Home Secretary has engaged in a consultation, and it seems that nobody wants the system he was consulting on. I am certainly aware of no expert opinion or surveys of public opinion in favour of it, and no such opinion has been expressed in this House. We wonder about opinion among Labour Back Benchers. Not even the Government's focus group wants the system he has prepared, so to whom has the Home Secretary been listening during the consultation period?
We appreciate the Home Secretary's good intentions, but the longer we look at this matter, the less wise we think the partisan comments about consultation were that the Home Secretary made on Second Reading. He might now wish to reconsider those comments, because the consultation has produced nothing in the way of change or additional justification for the steps that the Government are taking. Just for once, the Government should eat a little humble pie, if they can manage to do so.
I say that with some sadness, because, after the wild goose chase on which the Home Secretary has embarked, we have ended up with a system that is unique in Europe because of the power that it gives to the central party machine. The Home Secretary looks puzzled. I made the same assertion in an earlier debate and explained that no other country in the European Union uses such a system


because it involves the use of a closed list system at a regional level. Having made inquiries about that, the Home Secretary will have found that no other European country has such a system.
The centralised party control that such a system gives is the feature that matters most to the Government. From beginning to end, in every conceivable way, the Government's real priority has been to put power in the hands of the party machine. We regret the fact that they have abandoned a good system that worked well—that of individual candidates and constituencies. That is alien to our traditions.
For the first time, when voters cast their votes they will be confronted with a ballot paper containing just a party name. The individuals who will represent them regionally will be back-room people chosen as party placemen. We shall have a uniquely bad system of party control. It is well worth voting for the new clause, which will give the House an opportunity to reconsider that thoroughly bad and centralised party system at a later date.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The speech of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), to which the House has just listened with interest, was not compelling in its advocacy, and was personally abusive of the Home Secretary. He suggested that the consultative exercise in which the Home Secretary engaged was a sham. That conclusion is not justified. I confess to being disappointed with the Home Secretary's conclusions on this matter, which is why I tabled amendments Nos. 10 to 13.
The system proposed in our amendments, to which the Home Secretary has undoubtedly given some thought, avoids the less attractive aspects of the system proposed in the Bill, which would prevent voters from voting for a candidate on a party list. However, the electoral system proposed in the Bill is immeasurably preferable to the current system, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was speaking out of both sides of his mouth in attacking a closed list system, for we currently have a closed list system of one, with no voter choice at all. He is not in the best position to argue for the kind of changes that we have advocated.

Mr. Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether he is saying that the present system, under which a local party's election candidate is chosen from a group of candidates by its paid-up members, is a one choice system?

Mr. Maclennan: I am saying exactly that. Internal party democracy may apply to the selection of a single candidate, but the electorate at large have to accept the activists' choice. Partly for that reason, we enthusiastically endorse a list system which would allow greater choice. Still greater choice would be allowed if the Government accepted an open list system, in particular the one that we advocate: the Belgian system, which is semi-open and allows choice of party or of individual.
The Home Secretary said on Second Reading on 25 November that he would consider arguments for adopting the Belgian system, and I have no doubt that he has given the matter careful attention, in good faith. Many

representations, from my hon. Friends and from others, have been made about that system, but we know from the written answer given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on 5 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that no representations were made in favour of closed lists.
It is incumbent on the Government to say why they came down so heavily against the weight of those representations. Evidence in support of open lists was submitted by Charter 88 and the Electoral Reform Society, and by a number of other respected organisations. Between Second Reading and the recent announcement of the Home Secretary's decision, polls and focus group studies have been carried out to assess public attitude to the open list system.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to a focus group study commissioned by the Home Secretary. The largest survey was carried out by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics, who questioned 1,130 people. It concluded:
it is likely that a clear majority of voters in the 1999 elections would prefer to see an open list.
The McDougall Trust commissioned National Opinion Polls to run eight focus groups in January, and it concluded:
although voters claim to vote on the basis of a party, they react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves".
The NOP survey for the Home Office found:
voters can react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves, even if they tend to vote on the basis of party".
The Home Office and McDougall Trust studies state that voters
react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves".
That is important, because voter turnout is a significant consideration. Turnout at the 1994 European elections was about a third of those eligible to vote. If the finding that voters "react strongly" implies reduced voter turnout, there is a risk that turnout will be less than a third in the elections next year. It is our duty to do all we can to ensure a greater turnout, and it is our view that some voter choice in the election of candidates is one way of achieving that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's understanding, as it is mine, that the Government justify the Bill by saying that it will lead to greater voter participation than does the current system?

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will no doubt explain his thinking, but that is one of the arguments that moved my party to advocate a change of electoral system. There is a serious risk of that benefit being eroded, and the hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me.
In a written answer, the Home Secretary stated that the Belgian system
suffers from a fundamental and incurable weakness, in that voters' preferences for individual candidates are not necessarily translated into electoral success."—[Official Report, 9 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 17–18.]


That is true, and it was known last November, when the right hon. Gentleman agreed to consider the Belgian system. However, voters' preferences can lead to a change in the candidates who are elected. That would not happen in every case, but the system provides for voters to overturn the decision of a political party.
Other systems are available. The Home Secretary knows that we prefer the single transferable vote system, but he said on Second Reading that he would consider only the Belgian system, which allows limited voter choice. An open list system with candidates listed alphabetically or randomly would be preferable, and would overcome what he described as a "fundamental and incurable weakness".
The Home Secretary also justifies his decision by saying that the NOP study shows that most people vote for parties rather than for individuals. Whether or not that is true, it is not supported by the work carried out by NOP, and I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere on this point. NOP concluded that voters can
react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves, even if they tend to vote on the basis of party".
The NOP study also concluded that,
when understood, the Belgian system is considered fairer, but ensuring it is understood is likely to be more difficult".
That is a fair point, and I want to be utterly fair to the Home Secretary in my arguments. However, Professor Dunleavy's report found that 80 per cent. of people were able to fill in the Belgian-style ballot paper immediately, and without explanation. We hope that an explanation will be provided, although the Government have not given their views on that.
The Home Secretary also says in his written answer that the system in the Bill is used by the majority of European Union citizens to elect MEPs. It is true that closed lists are used in Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal, but in all those countries the regions used are far larger than in the United Kingdom, and have at least 25 Members—it is up to 99 members in Germany.
The system in the Bill provides for between four and 11 Members per region. A closed list system might be more appropriate in Germany because it would not be reasonable to expect voters to know the candidates when they are electing from 99 members. In most European countries where regions are small, as in the United Kingdom, or where national delegations are small, some form of open list is used.
The arguments in support of open lists are overwhelming, and is confirmed by the polling and focus group research. That is why I urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 10 to 13, to allow voters an opportunity to influence the election of candidates to represent them.
This is not the final stage of the Bill's consideration by Parliament, and I profoundly hope that the arguments we are deploying will be considered carefully by the Government, not only this afternoon but between now and the Bill's later stages. I hope that the Government will, as hitherto, approach this with an open mind. I hope that they do not firmly close the door to all the representations that have been made and seek to justify something that appears to have no parentage—an argument for closed lists—and which no one other but they appears to be prepared to support.

Mr. Sayeed: I remember the current Home Secretary during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was a firebrand

for democracy. He constantly asserted the rights of the individual, and complained about the arrogance of Government. Despite his political allegiance, then and now, I sometimes find myself in agreement with him. Let me say to him publicly what I have said to him privately; in the face of his recent personal difficulties, I believe that he has acted with considerable dignity. Anything that I say later in my speech is not said out of any personal animosity.
It is said that in the youth one can see the man. The Home Secretary's decision to opt for a closed list makes me doubt that truism. No one who has held true to their beliefs in democracy or who believes in the rights of the individual would be proposing a system so pernicious, undemocratic and contemptuous of the people. It allows the party machine, and only the party machine, to decide who is selected, the precedence of that selection, and, consequently, who is elected to represent the people of our country.
No amount of bluster, which we heard a great deal of on Second Reading, no amount of statistics, which were used a great deal in Committee, no examples from foreign lands, more of which we will probably hear today, and no bombardment of partial statistics, which we have had throughout the Bill's consideration, can deny one central point—that the closed list system reduces the individual voter to mere voting fodder. It is Tammany Hall writ large.
There is no need for a Member of the European Parliament elected under the closed list system to consider the wishes of their constituents, and there will be no need for them to attempt to inform or persuade the electorate. The only thing an MEP elected under that system need do is keep the party manager sweet. That means toeing the party line. It means that anyone who does not toe the party line will be relegated to a low place on the list, and consigned to electoral oblivion.
I must tell Labour Members—I am sorry that there are not more democrats in their places today—that anyone who contemplates rebelling or becoming a member of the awkward squad had better beware. What the Government intend to do today for European parliamentary elections may happen tomorrow for Westminster elections. Those who believe that dissent, debate, discussion and argument are essential ingredients of democracy will not be able to argue against a closed list system for Westminster elections if they have supported the closed list system for European elections.
Some of our greatest legislators were, at times, members of the awkward squad, including Wilberforce on the slave trade, Shaftesbury on philanthropic causes, Disraeli on the corn laws, Peel and Burke on Catholic emancipation, Churchill and Eden over appeasement, Macmillan on economic policy, and even Kinnock, Crossman, Bevan and Thorneycroft. Had they been subject to this form of legislation, they would never have been re-elected.
The decision to break the constituency link and divide our nation into 11 enormous regions, with the absurdity of an individual being elected to represent 5 million constituents, is bound to damage the bond between the elector and their representative. I believe that, before the general election, no one would have believed that a Government of any political persuasion would be so crass


and arrogant as to change government for the people, by the people into government by the party clone, for the party machine.
Perhaps as depressing as anything else is the craven and slovenly attitude of the fourth estate, which seems to take no notice of what is happening in this country. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) contemptuously saying that those in the Press Gallery were like the hallelujah chorus because of their parroting of the Government's praises. I wish that my hon. Friend was present today, because I could tell him that at least they used to use their own words. Now they seem to regurgitate the Labour party's spun doctrine.
Cannot the fourth estate understand the damage that is being done to our constitution—the one-sided settlement in Scotland, the lack of support in Wales, the decision to change the upper House without proposing anything that might be better, and now the decision on the closed list system, which is a denial of democracy? The press seem to be almost drunk on the nectar of Government patronage, and have forgotten that they have a responsibility to educate, inform and explain to the people of this country that they are losing rights that they have cherished and protections that they have enjoyed.

Mr. Richard Burden: There are many views on both sides of the House about the open and closed list systems. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in democracy, will he explain how, under the present system, in the last European election over 4 million people, accounting for about 27 per cent. of the total vote, managed to elect between them 2 per cent. of the MEPs?

Mr. Sayeed: I think that I need notice of that question to answer it properly. As I believe in giving clear answers to proper questions, I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. What I am clear about is that the first-past-the-post system is better than the system that is being proposed.
I issue a warning to the Labour Government. They had better beware, because what is done by them may at some stage be done to them. The arrogance that they are displaying with their proposals may come back to haunt them, because they will, at some stage—I hope sooner rather than later—lose an election. This denial of democracy, contempt for people's views and arrogant assumption that any form of dissent is wrong, will be used against them by others who equally disdain democracy.
Other hon. Members have mentioned that only one third of the electorate voted in the last European election. If voters are convinced, as they will be by this measure, that they are only voting fodder, used to endorse the yes men of a party system that they dislike, that figure will fall even further. To refuse to allow every voter a choice of which individual to support is wrong. It diminishes the value of their vote and reduces their respect for parliamentary democracy. The closed list system puts the party first. Anyone who believes in the dictum, "My country first, my constituency second, my party third," must oppose this anti-democratic measure.

5 pm

Mr. Gill: I support new clause 4. As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), my understanding is that the Government are justifying the Bill not least on the basis that it will generate greater interest and greater public participation in European elections and in the European Parliament. Of course, it has to be said that, in the three European elections since direct elections to the European Parliament began, public participation has left much to be desired. As has already been mentioned, the prospect is that participation in the forthcoming European election will be even less.
That is a serious consideration. If participation in next year's European election is less than in the previous European election—I predict that it will be, an opinion that seems to be shared by other hon. Members—there must be an opportunity to conduct a review after that election of the workings of the Bill, which will almost certainly reach the statute book because of the Government's enormous majority in this place.
After the election in 1999, there must be an opportunity to seek the public's views, not least on the erosion or destruction of the geographical link between a Member of the European Parliament and the area he represents. We need to give the public an opportunity to tell us how that has worked in practice—what the practical effects of destroying that link have been.
We also need to consult the public on the removal of an MEP who, post the election in June 1999, proves, for whatever reason, to be unsatisfactory. That person, who is elected by this arcane system, may turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable and perhaps even corrupt. The public's view should be taken about a system that effectively takes away from them the right, which they have had for hundreds of years, personally to remove an unsatisfactory representative in their Parliament.
In the light of those two features that I have mentioned—the ending of the geographical link and the Government's failure to answer the question of how the electorate get rid of an unsatisfactory MEP—after next year's election we have to be prepared to give the public an opportunity to comment on how the MEPs perform under the new system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has said, we are creating a regime that is unique in the degree of power that it gives to centralised party control. That is totally alien to all our traditions, another point that was made by my hon. Friend. It allows the MEPs, who will have been elected by this system of proportional representation, to treat the electors—the people who put them there—with total indifference.
Labour Members may feel that they can condone that situation or that it need not concern the House, but the Government are making a terribly anti-democratic step. The removal of the electors' right to select candidates themselves and to hold those people, whom they ultimately select and elect, to account is a departure from this country's traditions of democracy. I genuinely believe that we shall come to regret the removal of that right. It displays an extraordinary arrogance on the part of Government and contempt on the part of politicians who promote and are in favour of the Bill, and who clearly put themselves above the people. They are contemptuous of the people who elected them to Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made many good common-sense points, and I endorse them all. I hope that the House listened to what he said, because it was correct. I can relate it to my experience. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will bear with me if I relate that personal experience, because it demonstrates the way in which the link between a Member of Parliament and a constituency, and the relationship between Parliament, the Member and the people he represents, are all-important.
In November 1994, the party Whip was withdrawn from me and seven of my colleagues. We were without it for six months. What happened was not what the Government had anticipated. They had, I am sure, anticipated that those eight Conservative Members would disappear without trace and never be heard of again, but what happened—I want the whole House to hear this, because it is important and relates directly to the question of democracy—is that my constituents and those of the other seven Members made it clear that they supported the people they had elected to this Parliament, and not the Government. Therefore, those eight Members of Parliament were sustained by the electorate who had put them there in the first place.
The relationship between a Member of Parliament, the people who elect him and his duties and responsibilities in Parliament are finely balanced. If we take out of the equation any one aspect of that, we destroy the democratic process that we have known for so long. The Bill is taking out of the equation the most important factor—the right of electors to select their candidates.

Mr. Martin Linton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that his position was sustained by the electorate of Ludlow, can he explain how it was that Labour and the Liberal Democrats won 55 per cent. of the vote and he won only 42 per cent.?

Mr. Gill: That is the British system of parliamentary democracy. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would allow me to answer that question without ruling me out of order, as it takes us into a different argument—that between proportional representation and the first-past-the-post system. I am quite content to argue that point, but I am trying to confine my remarks to new clause 4, which proposes that a review procedure should be written into the Bill to allow us to revisit the matter after the next European elections in June 1999, when we shall have an opportunity to review the outcome of those elections.
I am not alone in believing that the turnout at those elections will be even lower than in previous European elections. New clause 4 would also provide a chance to look at other aspects of the system. Will it be apparent at that stage whether MEPs are becoming indifferent to the people who elect them? Will the new system of being answerable only to the party—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—rather than the electorate lead, as I believe it will, to corruption in politics on a scale that we have never known before?
In spite of what the general public might be led to believe by the less responsible organs of the press, British politics is very incorrupt. We have a very honest system of government. We have honest politics because we are all answerable to the people who put us here, and they

hold us to account. If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) were here this evening, I am sure that he would agree with that. My colleagues and I rail against the fact that the Bill removes the direct link by which an MEP is answerable to his electorate. As in the instance I gave earlier, on occasion a Member of Parliament is sustained by the electors if he goes against the Government or takes a stand on a matter of principle or an issue that he considers vital to the country and which must come before his constituency and even his party.
New clause 4 should be included in the Bill as a guarantee that the Government will provide an opportunity to re-examine the way in which the Bill works in practice.

Mr. Allan: I support the amendments referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), which seek to include in the Bill the concept of an open list.
The Liberal Democrats seek two broad objectives from any electoral system. First, it should be generally proportional, as that is essential for the democratic process, and non-proportional systems can never achieve our democratic goal. Secondly, it should seek to maximise voter choice. The proposed system goes a long way towards our first objective of increased proportionality, and for that reason we support it. However, if the Government do not accept the amendments in respect of an open list, they will have failed to take an important step towards increasing voter choice.
The best system to achieve both our objectives is the single transferable vote, and we remain committed to that, wherever possible, but clearly it was not to be included in the Bill. The crucial point is that the proposed system does not take us further away from voter choice than the first-past-the-post system. Although it makes no progress, it is not a step backwards.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) condemned the pernicious nature of the proposed system, but I would challenge him to say that the current first-past-the-post system is not equally pernicious. Once a group of party members have selected a candidate, if voters wish to vote for a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat member, they have only one choice. Many decent, honourable Conservative Members lost their seats because of swings that were identical to those against other hon. Members who may have been slightly less popular.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whose position was sustained by local support. Hundreds of people select one representative from a group. I stood for selection for the seat of Mid-Bedfordshire against the former Attorney-General, so I was probably not my party's first choice, but the decision was made by hundreds of local people. The problem with the proposed system is that it would be not the people, but the party managers who chose the candidate.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman seems slightly confused about his own party's selection procedure. It is my understanding that only members of the Conservative party selected a candidate for the election. The Liberal


Democrats follow an identical system. It is not the electors who choose the candidate, as we have no system of primaries. However, that brings me to my next point—how parties select their candidates.
My understanding is that the new Conservative party—or the newCs—are following the example of the Liberal Democrats and moving towards the one member, one vote system and that you will select your candidates on that basis. It is certainly acceptable for all the Conservatives in a region to continue electing a rebel or a particularly difficult character. Under your system, as under ours, party managers will not be able to prevent local party members from making a selection, so we will be no worse off than we are under the current system.
It will remain for local party members to decide whether they want people who toady and toe the line, or whether they want people who are slightly more independent. In our party and, I think, in yours—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps using the words "you" and "yours". He should try to use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of the correct terms.
The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats like candidates to show some independence. I would expect that to continue. We shall return to the issue of selection, and I would be interested to hear how the Labour party intends to select its candidates for the list.
As political parties have a democratic system for selection to the lists, the closed list system does not take us backwards. The source of regret for the Liberal Democrats is that the Government failed to take the opportunity to move us forward towards greater voter choice in the electoral process. We hope that the Home Secretary and his team will return to the issue as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, give further consideration to the objective of maximising voter choice, and, having listened to the arguments so eloquently made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, produce an open list system that will at least enact the spirit of our amendments, if they cannot accept them today.

Mr. Syms: I support new clause 4, which is a good clause that I commend to the House. Like all Conservative Members who have spoken today, I start with the usual health warning that I support the first-past-the-post system. The speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) clearly showed the advantages of having a geographical base. In many respects, it sustains in this place independent Members of Parliament—perhaps those who are out of favour with their party—and enables them to speak their minds. In the political process, that is sometimes a very important thing. We in this country have a tradition that we elect individuals with party labels; indeed, it is worth reflecting on the fact that party labels did not appear on the ballot until about 1970, so even that is a relatively recent development. Therefore, what is proposed is alien to the British political tradition.
I am not saying that all facets of first past the post are good. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) pointed out one of the deficiencies, which

is that those in second or third place in many seats tend to get less representation. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) also made a good point, but, accepting the swings and roundabouts of the system, first past the post delivers effective government and effective representation at local level.
Most of us have been through selections, when the first question asked is, "Will you live in the constituency?" at which we all beam and reply, "Yes." That answer would be totally meaningless in constituencies of the size proposed; for example, the South West area will stretch from the Isles of Scilly to Tewkesbury and Bournemouth. The local candidate preference would go under the proposed system.
We have used in European parliamentary elections a system based on first past the post for nearly 20 years, and it has worked—not perfectly, but reasonably well, given the size of the seats. It has allowed the MEP to deal with a limited number of local authorities, county National Farmers Union representatives and other organisations. By and large, I do not get the impression that people want to change the system. There is some argument that the size of seats is too large, but the Government's arguments in favour of creating vast regional areas go the wrong way.
Several of my hon. Friends have spoken about the open list and closed list systems, but I have some sympathy with the Home Secretary, in that that question cannot be considered in isolation; the size of the regions must be considered as well. Unfortunately, the regions chosen are too large for the electorate to have full information in terms of choosing candidates. In the South East area, there are 11 seats and in the North East, 10. Those areas are far too large: it would have been sensible to accept amendments tabled by the Conservatives at an earlier stage which tried to reduce the size of constituencies. An open list system would have been more sensible with a much more limited size of seat. However, there is a general feeling among hon. Members that open list systems are better. A system in which people vote for a political party and which is based purely on a list so that people have no local discretion is not a particularly good thing.
New clause 4 is important, as it would place a duty on the Government to review the system after the election. That is fair. It would insist that the Government commence the review within 12 months of the election, so that they could find out how people felt when they went into the polling booths and how they felt about the whole process. Such a review, carried out under the auspices of a Speaker's conference, would not be unreasonable. A party list system is very much an alien concept, and it would be the first time that people on the mainland had used it, so some feedback from the electorate is important.
As my hon. Friends have said, there are several tests one will want to apply to the new system—for example, turnout is critical. It is fair to say that if turnout were no higher or if it were lower, that should be a material factor in deciding what to do for the succeeding election. There are several points that should be discussed after the election is over and it would be sensible to have a thorough review—one that takes the temperature of the public and perhaps takes into account the views of the political parties that have to operate the new system. If, after the review, people feel that


first past the post—despite its deficiencies in terms of the size of constituencies—is preferable, that should be a realistic option for consideration. That is what is suggested in new clause 4, which is why I support it.
I do not like the proposed system. It will upset many people when they see how it operates in terms of party and in terms of the way they vote. It is important that if, as we anticipate, the Government get their way tonight—or tomorrow, or whenever—and the Bill is passed, they are subject to a duty to give full consideration to reviewing the process and perhaps reporting back to the House. Many claims have been made for the system, and a review process would be a useful tool in good government.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I rise to support the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have only three points to make.
First, the Home Secretary must accept that there is little support for a closed system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made excellent speeches, and Conservative Members have made some good points in arguing against a closed system. It is easy enough to rebut them by saying, "Your system is worse"—we are all better at attacking than at explaining our own policies—but the fact that the Conservatives support a bad system does not invalidate their arguments against a closed system, which is a not-quite-so-bad system. There were strong points made that the Home Secretary should address. A closed system will lose much of the potential popularity that an open proportional system might gain.
Secondly, as I understand it, my right hon. and hon. Friends initially proposed the Belgian open list system because discussions had suggested that it was the most likely to be acceptable to the Government. It is by no means the best open system in that it does not necessarily put more popular candidates higher up the list. If the Home Secretary thinks that that is a vital argument against the Belgian system, there are many other open systems that either number people one, two, three, four, or put an X opposite one name in a random or alphabetical list and so give the voter more choice. If the objection to the Belgian system is that it is less effectual, the answer is not to scrub all open systems, but to go for a more effectual open system.
Thirdly, I should like to support the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam. If the Government insist on having a closed system, would it be possible to put on the face of the Bill that parties had to elect their list in a democratic fashion? That might be considered frightfully wicked, but I find the procedures of this House far more difficult to understand than electoral systems. I might be quite wrong—if I am, I am sure that someone will tell me—but I believe that it would satisfy the public to some extent if an element of democracy was introduced, and if it was put on the face of the Bill that the internal party mechanism that applied in our party, in the Conservative party and, I hope, in the nationalist

parties and others, would ensure that candidates were responsible to local party members and not just to the big bad brothers in London.

Mr. Straw: I shall deal first with the precise points raised by new clause 4 and then cover the wider issues relating to the other amendments, which touch on the Belgian question.
New clause 4 would require the Government to establish a major inquiry into the conduct of the 1999 European parliamentary elections. I should explain—I hope it will reassure hon. Members who support the new clause—that successive Governments have regularly reviewed electoral practices following both Westminster elections and other elections, and we intend to continue that practice.
The House may know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is chairing a working group which is reviewing all aspects of electoral procedure in the light of the 1997 general election. That working party involves hon. Members drawn from all the main political parties, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. We want the review to be as inclusive as possible.
The reviews are not undertaken under statutory authority, and I do not believe that there would be merit—indeed, there are a lot of disadvantages—in tying ourselves to the proposals in new clause 4. It would be sensible—particularly as we are using a new electoral system—not to make decisions about the precise form in which a review should take place until after the election, so we can take account of the experience of holding the election.
5.30 pm
I give an undertaking that there will be a review into the conduct of elections. I do not give an undertaking as to the precise form of that review, but we will consult the other parties. It will be for the Government to make proposals for the review and to conduct it, but we shall consult the other parties before proceeding. We shall seek, so far as possible, to gain agreement.

Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is wide support among Labour Members for a review after the election, as concerns have been expressed about the closed list system. May I draw to his attention the fact that much of the support for a more open system has come from Labour and Opposition Members who are in favour of the principle of proportional representation—not just for European elections, but for other legislatures such as the House of Commons, where there is no substantial support for a list system as the basis for any proportional system?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and it will be for us to decide in the light of experience, but we will take account of his points.
New clause 4(3) states:
The review shall be conducted under the auspices of a Speaker's Conference.
This is an old saw, and there are occasions when Speakers' Conferences are suggested as some kind of magic process by which agreement can be achieved.


I have a list of the occasions when Speaker's Conferences have been held this century; 1908–10, 1917, 1930, 1943–44, 1965–68, 1972–74 and 1977–78. Scanning the list of dates, I am not aware of these Speaker's Conferences producing any significant change in the electoral system of this country. I can think of no legislation on elections—except the European Assembly Elections Act 1977—that coincided with any of those Speaker's Conferences. I happen to know that the 1977 Bill was not prompted by a Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Maclennan: I served on two of those Speaker's Conferences, and I can fully fortify the Home Secretary's argument that they did not lead to significant changes. Indeed, the Speaker's Conference which concluded its deliberations in 1968 recommended votes at 20 for young people, but the Government of the day decided simply to ignore that and to proceed with votes for young people at the age of 18.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were speculating earlier about the right hon. Gentleman's secret of eternal youth. He has sat in this House continuously since 1966, and he looks little older than I remember him 30 years ago. He wears his age very well.
I thought that there was a sting in the tail when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the Labour Government in the 1960s ignoring the decision of the Speaker's Conference to go for a voting age of 20, but he omitted to mention the fact that the committee under Mr. Justice Latey, which reported in 1968, recommended a voting age of 18. As I recall, that was the reason why the then Labour Government chose it.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am going to be corrected again.

Mr. Maclennan: There was no sting in the tail of my previous intervention, but there might be in this, for I was also on the Latey committee. The committee did not have it within its terms of reference to recommend anything about public rights—it was entirely devoted to private rights, and the age of majority for civil purposes.

Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be careful before mentioning any other committee in case he has sat on it.

Mr. Linton: There is a sting in the tail in the suggestion from the Opposition of a Speaker's Conference, which is that such a conference can proceed only on the basis of consensus. As the Opposition have said that they are committed to the first-past-the-post system, the new clause would clearly have the effect of a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Straw: Whether it would be wrecking or not, there is a great deal of sense in what my hon. Friend says. I ask the Opposition to think again. A Speaker's Conference would be an unwieldy piece of machinery. I have given an undertaking about a review and the Opposition will be

consulted. They are certainly involved in the current review, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will take that as a statement of good faith.
I now come to the issue for which the British public have been waiting—they talk of little else at my open-air meetings in Blackburn—whether this House should go for the simple, British-manufactured list system, or the Belgian list system. I wish to refer to two preliminary matters raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and a separate one raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere about the system proposed by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ludlow made important points about the independence of Members of Parliament and their freedom to speak out and vote according to their conscience, and how that independence derives from our system of election and, above all, from our connection with our constituencies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I hope that that is not too much of a shock for him.
The hon. Member for Ludlow was in the Chamber on 25 November for the Second Reading debate, where I set out at some length my belief about the way in which the Commons operates, and how
one of the enormous strengths of our system is that, however high and mighty we think we may be, the fact that we have to go back to our constituency on a Friday evening, sit in a community centre and receive representations from our constituents, gives us a direct link to our constituents in a way that it is impossible to replicate under a system of multi-Member proportional representation."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.]
I believe that passionately, as does the hon. Member for Ludlow. The view is widely shared in the House. However, the hon. Gentleman was advancing an argument about this Chamber—a legislative Chamber which sustains a Government. That is not what we are talking about in respect of the European Parliament, and that is why it causes me no difficulty—notwithstanding my views about the importance of the way in which the representation of the Chamber is rooted in our communities—to propose the Bill.
The difference is that the European Parliament is not a legislature. It is a representative body. It does not sustain a Government and, moreover, the constituencies with which we have ended up are very large—so large, in my view, as to lead to an artificial and distant relationship between the Member and the elector. It follows that, as the function of a Member of the European Parliament is primarily representative, we need to move to a more representative electoral system.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Home Secretary agree that the European Parliament now has a legislative role, which the Labour party has consistently—well, certainly for two years—supported? The Single European Act 1985, the enactment of the Maastricht treaty and the legislation to implement the Amsterdam treaty, which the Prime Minister steered through the House, have given legislative powers to the European Parliament, where the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), served with great distinction. The real comparison is between the European Parliament and Congress in the United States—there is a similar system of checks and balances, and a


similar constituency size in terms of electors' and MEPs have forged links with their constituents as strongly as Congressmen.

Mr. Straw: I accept that the three Acts to which the hon. Lady referred—two of which were passed under the Conservative Government—have given the European Parliament legislative functions, but those functions are limited and they are shared with the Council of Ministers and the Commission. I do not want to go down this path in any detail—that would not be in order—but I point out that sovereignty rests with the Westminster Parliament. Parliament can, at any time in the future, decide that the United Kingdom should not be a member of the European Union. That remains the case for each of the other member states. That is what makes the profound difference.

Mr. Gill: I accept that there is a difference between the Westminster Parliament and the European Parliament—indeed, many of us feel that the European Parliament is not so much a Parliament as an assembly. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the fears among Conservative Members that the Bill represents the thin end of the wedge, and that it will encourage Labour Members to bring forward another Bill to introduce proportional representation to elections to the Westminster Parliament, which would be entirely inappropriate.

Mr. Straw: I do not think that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge—it deals with a very different institution. I have always taken the view that, on voting systems, there must be horses for courses. Under the Labour Government—we made this absolutely clear in our manifesto—there can be no change in the voting system for the House of Commons without the explicit approval of the British people in a referendum.
I have one set of views, which I have expressed. One of the reasons why I have supported the proposal for a referendum is that I believe that it is time for the argument about the electoral system that applies to the House of Commons to be brought to a conclusion. Either the British people will give the current system new legitimacy and approval or they will vote for a change. I shall not speculate about what will happen, but I say that as an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman misleads himself, if not others, if he seriously thinks that, under the co-decision procedure and the system of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, the House of Commons is not bound by the decisions that are taken. The further that we move towards European government, the worse the situation becomes—it is bound to affect the votes in the ballot box of people making a free choice.
In practice, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a distinction that cannot be made. On the question of individual choice in the ballot box, there is no real difference—especially given the increasingly grand functions that are conferred in the European arena—between what is decided in the House of Commons and what is decided in the European institutions, which are increasingly seen as a superior sphere of law.

Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the issue, but I repeat that it is ultimately a matter

for the Westminster Parliament whether we accede or remain subject to any treaty. If we accede to a treaty, we are bound by its obligations for as long as we accept them, but ultimately sovereignty rests with Parliament.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere claimed that the simple list system that is proposed in the Bill would be unique in Europe in terms of the amount of power that would be placed in the hands of the party machine. I tried to persuade him that that was incorrect.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way on that point, as I want him fully to understand my argument. The evil of a proposal for such a concentration of power lies in the fact that there will be a closed list system at a regional level. As far as I know, no other such system exists in Europe—in the European Union, at least; I do not know about eastern Europe—but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if he thinks otherwise. I have been unable to discover a system that so concentrates power at such a level within the party machinery.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my next point for me. He has accepted, by implication, that there are a number of other countries that operate closed or simple lists—they include France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contain more than half the voters of the European Union. The system is far from unique.
Which is more democratic, a regional list or a national list? The system in France, where each party centrally determines all the 87 members on a list, must be subject to greater central control than the system that we are proposing, whereby the component parts of the parties—in Scotland, Wales and the English regions—will determine who will be on the lists. I do not accept the conclusion of the hon. Member for Hertsmere—indeed, the reverse of what he says is true.
I shall now deal with the Belgian system, which is central to the issues raised in the new clause and the amendments. The hon. Member for Hertsmere was good enough to remind the House what I said on Second Reading, when I spelled out our support for the simple list system. I said:
it has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the kind that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for a party as a whole or for an individual candidate from the party list—or, of course"—
as is common to all those systems—
for an independent candidate.
I discussed the merits and demerits, and said:
I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 813–14.]
As the hon. Member for Hertsmere was good enough to accept, I did not suggest that we were committed to going down the Belgian route—as things have turned out, that has certainly been the case.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for accepting that I have acted in good faith. I have listened to the arguments carefully, and I have also studied the system with greater care than I was able to before Second Reading on 25 November.
On Second Reading—I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere—I mentioned some of the obvious differences between the Belgian and the simple list systems. The key difference—voter choice may operate in such a way that a candidate may receive more personal votes but still not be elected to the list—was certainly known, and I acknowledged it in my speech. However, none of us had then had the opportunity—I certainly had not—to go into further detail about exactly how that factor would work out; nor were we able to determine what weight should be given to the various advantages and disadvantages of the systems. That is what I have sought to do in the three months since the debate on 25 November. I have also sought to assist right hon. and hon. Members in assessing the system by placing in the Library an explanation of its operation and, more recently, some examples of how it sometimes, in my judgment, operates capriciously by implying that candidates with the highest number of personal votes have won when they have not.
In addition, in December we decided that it would be sensible to commission some research into what is a complicated matter and we retained NOP. The results were passed to Opposition spokespeople and placed in the Library as soon as we received them. The hon. Member for Hertsmere chided me about the time that that took, but I chided NOP, because the delay was frustrating and we might have been able to make decisions earlier had the information been available. The difficulty first arose in finding a research house that was able to do the work, which then had to establish its focus groups.

Mr. Sayeed: The Home Secretary is now talking about the mechanics of the system, but he has not yet dealt with the principle. The principle of a closed list system is that the party organisation makes the decisions—albeit slightly devolved in some cases. The Home Secretary knows that many valuable Members, on both sides of the House, belong to the awkward squad. Do not his proposals for the European Parliament mean that any Labour member of the awkward squad would never get high enough on the list to be elected?

Mr. Straw: Exactly the same factors apply to Westminster. Within living memory, the Conservative party was the most centrally controlled party of all, and Conservative central office's writ was strong. That period coincided with a time of strong Conservative Government. The party then entered an anarchist phase and we have seen the results in the past four years, as the Tory party fell apart and all sorts of people who were born with two left feet caused huge trouble to the party whip. The result was that the Conservative party fell to the biggest defeat in its electoral history.

Mr. Cash: But we won the argument.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my point, because he is still part of the anarchist tendency and obviously enjoys it. If a party contains two irreconcilable groups, it must have a loose system of discipline to try to keep them together. The Labour party went through an anarchist phase, with equally disastrous consequences, and we have now chosen to introduce some discipline.

I make no apologies for that. I can tell the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that even 30 years ago, when I occupied a different position, I recognised the importance of discipline, as one or two hon. Members can testify.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will not give way, because I must get on, and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I wish to deal with the questions raised about the Belgian system. In balancing the Belgian system against the closed list system, we must give great weight to the need for simplicity. We are moving to a new system and, although such systems are well understood abroad, they are not necessarily well understood in this country. Every hon. Member who has read the NOP report will agree that British electors are remarkably ignorant about the European Parliament and what Members of the European Parliament do. We hope to see an increase in interest following the change in the electoral system, but the new system must be simple.
NOP had problems—which were one reason for the delay—in setting up focus groups. It tried to create groups at least half of whose members had definitely voted in the previous European parliamentary elections, but that proved impossible. Instead it had to make do with people who were assumed to have voted in those elections, because they claimed always to vote. That may be regrettable, but it is something that we cannot ignore. We need an electoral system that, while meeting the basic goal of proportionality, is as simple as possible and does nothing to discourage people from voting. In my judgment, the Belgian system does not deliver that.
The overriding problem with the Belgian system is that apparent preferences do not translate into electoral success. As I said when I announced the Government's decision, it is not necessarily the candidates with the most personal votes who are elected. It has taken me some time to assess the weight that should be given to that factor, but I have placed in the Library several examples of what could happen under different patterns of voting, comparing votes for a party list and for individuals on a list.
Even when as many as 40 per cent. of voters express a personal preference for an individual candidate—which is unlikely to happen—in almost all cases the first three candidates on the party list are elected. For those hon. Members who have a copy of the report before them, that is shown in example I. Votes can be cast for candidates in inverse weight to the order of the list, so that candidates at the bottom of the list get the most personal votes and those at the top the fewest, but the candidates at the top of the list are still elected. Therefore, while one can see the attractions of the system before the election because it might seem to offer voters an extra element of choice, we might find that after the election we would reap a whirlwind—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know which hon. Member is responsible for that electronic noise, but Madam Speaker takes a serious view of such happenings.

Mr. Straw: Unfortunately, some of the Whips are unable to communicate by words, so they have to rely on other means.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Some of them cannot read, either.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend should know, because she was once a Whip.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend has mentioned me, will he give way?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I will.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, I assure my right hon. Friend that my affection for him will remain undiminished, but why does he assume that less control will be exerted over a regional list than over a central list? Is he aware that, under the German system, candidates can be defeated by the electorate but still return on the list? If that is not anti-democratic, I do not know what is.

Mr. Straw: I believe that there is potential for more democratic control by parties regionally rather than locally. The argument runs that there is most democratic control by the party at local level, as the smallest unit, and the least at a national level. The regional level is in between. I am happy to explain that point in more detail to my hon. Friend later.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Home Secretary will know that the Conservative party has decided that its members in the regions will be able to select the candidates for nomination. I understand that the Labour party will choose its candidates for every region centrally in London.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is ill informed about our system, as he is about his party's system. According to a speech made in the House recently, the Conservative party proposes to hold a mass meeting in each region of all Conservative party members to choose the candidates for the list, and rank them in order by some sort of open outcry system. Some serious objections were raised to that procedure by a Conservative Member because it would be difficult to get members from the south-east region, which ranges from Berkshire to Gravesham, in a single hall to conduct that process. Plenty of halls are small enough, but that is another point. I fancy that, if the Conservative party wants to put up a coherent list of candidates, it will have to take some lessons, from the Liberal Democrats and perhaps from the Labour party, about how to run parties by an internal democratic system.
6 pm
Opinions about the report differ and it is fair to say that it came to no firm conclusion either way. But it exposed electors' concern about the way in which the Belgian system could operate. One member of the public said:
Candidate F could still poll more than the top candidate, and still not get in.
Another member of the public said:
I don't think it's fair. The person at the top might have less votes. The person at the bottom might have a lot more votes but if they haven't got the quota they haven't got any chance".
Another person said:
That's not a fair system".
As I have explained, one of the points that I considered was how often the result would fail to reflect voters' personal preferences for candidates. Those who support

the Belgian system argue that that happens very rarely and that, in three successive elections in Belgium, the Belgian voter has sought to overturn the party' s list on only three occasions out of 75. The argument is that, in practice, the result of the Belgian system will be little different from that of the closed list system, but the Belgian system looks better.
Superficially, I understand the nature of that argument, but I believe that it rests on dangerous foundations. The foundation of the argument is that the British voter will behave in the same way as the Belgian voter. I know of no basis for such a proposition. We do not know what proportion of voters would choose to vote for a candidate down the list rather than for the party or the candidate at the head of the list. We do know that, on a wide range of possible voting patterns, voters may end up with a strong sense in some cases of almost being cheated. That will happen when they see a candidate with the fewest personal votes being elected and a candidate with the most personal votes not being elected.

Mr. Clappison: May I press the Home Secretary on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)? Will an individual member of the Labour party have an opportunity to determine the order of candidates that his party will be putting to the electorate?

Mr. Straw: There will be ballots within our party, and party members will be able to express preferences about which candidates should go on to the list for further consideration.

Mr. Maclennan: We must regard as the nub of his argument the proposition that the British voter would be disposed to be different from other voters. No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being insular, but he seems to be embracing some sort of curious national stereotype. The only significant evidence that we have is that of actual elections—as well as the conclusions of the focus groups, which, looked at not anecdotally, as he has done, but in the round, showed a clear propensity of view favouring open lists.

Mr. Straw: I was not making a chauvinist point, but I was, by implication, making a point about the nature of Belgian politics, which is very different from politics in many other countries in Europe, because the Belgian nature is split between the Flemings and the Walloons. That affects their politics in a way that outside, Northern Ireland, our politics, thankfully, is not affected.

Mr. Syms: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall not give way, as I have given way many times and I want to conclude my remarks.
I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. I hope that Opposition Members will weigh the words
I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome
with great care, because they were not my words or those of any Labour or Liberal Democrat Member, but those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister and he was advancing the


case for this system for use in the Northern Ireland peace forum elections. They are recorded in Hansard, 21 March 1996, volume 274, column 498.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Hertsmere that the simple closed list system using the d'Hondt divisor that he described an hour or so ago as a rotten and wretched system is precisely the system that he, as a member of the Government, supported when it was introduced with the broad consent of the House by his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister. Were that system rotten and wretched, and the worst possible system, as the hon. Gentleman now proclaims, it would not have been used by him or by his right hon. Friend for any election for any sort of institution. But it was used for the elections to the Northern Ireland peace forum, which was an important part of the peace process, because what was sought was a system which was proportional and produced a representative outcome.
In our judgment, that is what is needed for elections to the European Parliament—a system that is proportional and simple, and that produces a representative outcome. That system was good enough for the previous Prime Minister; we also believe that it has every merit for the European elections. I ask the House to oppose the new clause.

Mr. Cash: I wish to register my deep objection to any sort of proportional representation. Listening to the Secretary of State ducking and weaving in and out of the policies that have been prescribed for him by No. 10 is astonishing. He knows perfectly well that he prefers the first-past-the-post system, but he has been given his instructions and is carrying them out to the letter.
I strongly recommend that the Home Secretary reads Burke's "A Letter to a Noble Lord" in which the cleric, the Abbé Sieyès, is described as having come up with a range of different constitutions. I heard the Home Secretary refer to patterns, the bottom and the top, and helping everything to look better. I recommend that he reads the description of the constitutional contortions of the Abbé Sieyès. He will then discover that many lessons were learned many years ago about the way to run a proper democracy. The direction in which the Government are taking the British people is directly contrary to the principles and traditions on which free votes have been held for generations and should continue to be held.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise to the Home Secretary and to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was dealing with a constituency matter, but I took advantage of the television cameras—against which I voted when the House decided on their introduction—and was able to observe the debate.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me, because the measure is one of a series of measures that will introduce huge constitutional changes to our country, sweep away Britain's constitutional landscape and create a wholly new and alien one in the same way as did the hurricane that swept through the south of England in 1987.
I recognise that Labour Members feel that they have a mandate for the changes, but they are not being debated out there among the British people, because newspapers,

even the broadsheet newspapers, are not interested. They are interested only when Mr. Murdoch feels that his reporters' ability to pry into the lives of public citizens is threatened and that part of the Government's legislative programme might create, through the back door, a privacy law that would impair his ability to play his newspapers in the way that he wants. We are debating only one of the measures, but it is part of a pattern, which is why I support new clause 4. It is essential that the system should be reviewed within 12 months of its coming into operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made a strong case for a Member of Parliament or a member of the European Parliament having direct association with those who returned him to this place or to the European Parliament. The Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I hope that the Home Secretary will be kind enough to listen to me for a minute. He made a good point in response to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow: he entirely agreed with him regarding elections to this place. The only point of departure was that he felt that the European Parliament does not sustain a Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) pointed out, it is the contention of those of us who oppose the drift towards federalism that the European Parliament and European Commission are taking powers away from the House, and that therefore they are assuming the role of a Government. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do that our continental partners want a single European state, a single Government and a single Parliament, and he is creating a voting system that could, in theory, apply to a European Government of the future.
I urge the Home Secretary to think again about what he is creating. I hope it will not damage him when I say that I have no doubt that he is sincere in his view that the pattern that he proposes for European elections will not be extended into elections for this place, but I do not believe that his colleagues on the Benches behind him are all of the same view. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, I disagree with the Home Secretary: I think that it will be the thin end of the wedge. In the south-east, we shall have a constituency of 5.5 million electors. It is bad enough at the moment, with a constituency of 500,000 electors. At least Graham Mather, who represents me in the European Parliament, is an excellent Member of the European Parliament. He is a Tory—I am not sure how many others there are—

Miss McIntosh: Excuse me.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend, of course, is a Tory Member of the European Parliament, but she does not represent me and she is a very much prettier Tory than Mr. Mather. His constituents know that, if they have a problem, they can turn to him for help. Incidentally, the people of his constituency and my constituents have increasing problems because the House is losing its powers to determine legislation; increasingly, decisions are taken on the continent. Mr. Mather's constituents know where to turn. Where will they turn if the system that the Government propose is introduced?
It is absolutely right and proper that we should be accountable to our constituents individually, and in this Parliament my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow


and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—formerly the Member for Stafford—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are proving the value of being able to speak out and knowing that they are accountable not to the apparatchiks of their parties, but to those who returned them to this place.
The Labour party is already demonstrating a very unattractive, Stalinist approach to all this. Ken Coates and Hugh Kerr were drummed out of the Labour party merely for disagreeing with the Government's policy on the electoral system. The Bill will give more power to the party apparatchiks and, although some of the party apparatchiks in my party are some of my best friends, I nevertheless believe that they would agree that their power should be contained.
I am proud to be a Conservative, and part of the essence of being a Conservative is that one believes that a thing should be changed only when necessary; otherwise, one should conserve what is good. The Home Secretary and the Government are sweeping away some of the pillars of the United Kingdom constitution, and some of those things for which this country is the envy of the world. That is why I shall stand here to fight for what I believe should be conserved. I will not defer to anyone in that.
If the Home Secretary can make a case to justify the change that he is proposing, let him make it. He has a duty to make a case that change is needed. Instead of making that case, he has proved the point that the new electoral procedure that he proposes for the European elections will be deeply damaging, because it will remove the connection between the elected Member and those who elect him or her.
The only case that the Home Secretary might make is that there is little public interest in the European election. I do not believe that the Bill will increase public interest in European elections. Indeed, I believe that, because it will be even more remote, there will be even less interest in future than there is at the moment.
I conclude by urging the Home Secretary to take on board the significance of the responsibility that rests with him and his Cabinet colleagues. They must not—they have no right to—inflict on the British people the destruction of some of the traditions that we hold dear in this country, which the public are not aware are under threat from the Government. It is the duty of those of us who do not believe that this is the right way to go, to warn the Government of the whirlwind that they will reap with the Bill and the raft of other measures that they propose.

Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the debate. I welcome what the Home Secretary said at the start of his speech about consultation, and I welcome the spirit in which he said it. Before I discuss the substance of his other comments, which I am afraid did not assuage my concerns, I pay tribute to some of the excellent speeches that we have heard, especially from the Conservative Benches, by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—formerly for Stafford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire spoke feelingly, in a very thoughtful speech; my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow made a speech which his record entitled him to make; and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole made a typically well-informed speech.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) will not mind my saying that I was perplexed by his speech, because he attacked my speech and then agreed with all my arguments. I suppose that that is another example of the Liberals not being prepared to press their convictions. Apparently they will do almost anything to curry favour with the Government and will not raise a peep of protest even when they have been given a humiliating rebuff—which they have been by the Government's refusal to listen to a word that they have said about the Bill and about open lists.
The Home Secretary's comments reveal that he has not fully grasped my argument about the uniqueness of the system that he proposes. The unique feature is the use of a closed list at a regional level. The closed list discriminates against individual candidates. It is impossible for the electorate to express a preference for an individual party candidate, and, at a regional level, it makes it much more difficult for a small party—or individuals who wish to form a small party—to get elected. The system is a double whammy for the party machine, and the most centralised form of party control in Europe. No other country has such a system.
It does not help the Home Secretary's case for him to talk about the selection of candidates, because he is on somewhat dodgy ground there. He did not give a complete answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, although he was pressed on the subject.
The method of selecting candidates is not the only important issue. The crucial aspect, in a list system, is the order of candidates on the list. I say that without making a party concession. It will not avail anyone greatly to be No. 10 on the Conservative list in the north-west or No. 4 on the Conservative list in the north-east. What is important—[Laughter.] I contested Bootle for the Conservative party, so I believe that I am entitled to say that. What is important is the order of the names—who appears high in the list, for all parties in different parts of the country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: The Under-Secretary has grasped that point.
It is significant that the Labour party, for its own internal reasons, is not prepared to give individual party members the opportunity to put the candidates in order under the list system. Individual members are deprived of that opportunity, which members of the Conservative party will have. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a good speech, complaining about the ridiculous size of the regions; we say amen to every word of that.
Although I welcome what the Home Secretary said about consultation, I do not have great confidence in his comments, given the background of the way in which consultation proceeded. The Home Secretary told us that


he had seen no new evidence in support of the course that he wishes to take with closed lists. He had heard no new representations or new arguments. Apparently, it turned out that, although he chose the Belgian system from those available, the Belgian people have characteristics that make them different from people in the United Kingdom.
It remains a bit of a mystery why the Home Secretary chose the Belgian system when he could have selected any one of a number of other systems. It shows that the Government are unwilling to consult and to listen. They have chosen not only a bad system—we think that first past the post is much better—but a bad system of the worst form. They are not prepared to listen to argument; it is another example of the way in which power has gone to the Government's head. That is why we shall press new clause 4 to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 290.

Division No. 202]
[6.19 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Arbuthnot, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Leigh, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Lidington, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lilley,Rt Hon Peter


Brady, Graham
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacKay, Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Madel, Sir David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Colvin, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Norman, Archie


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Streeter, Gary


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Townend, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael



Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter





Wells, Bowen
Woodward, Shaun


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Nigel Waterson and



Mr. James Cran.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darvill, Keith


Alexander, Douglas
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Allan, Richard
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dawson, Hilton


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dobbin, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Atherton, Ms Candy
Donohoe, Brian H


Atkins, Charlotte
Dowd, Jim


Austin, John
Drew, David


Baker, Norman
Drown, Ms Julia


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Banks, Tony
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Battle, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beard, Nigel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ennis, Jeff


Begg, Miss Anne
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Benton, Joe
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Flint, Caroline


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Best, Harold
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blackman, Liz
Foulkes, George


Blizzard, Bob
Fyfe, Maria


Boateng, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Borrow, David
Gardiner, Barry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bradshaw, Ben
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Breed, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Browne, Desmond
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Goggins, Paul


Burstow, Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gorrie, Donald


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hancock, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Harvey, Nick


Caplin, Ivor
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Casale, Roger
Healey, John


Caton, Martin
Hepburn, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Heppell, John


Chaytor, David
Hesford, Stephen


Chidgey, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Church, Ms Judith
Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cotter, Brian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Ingram, Adam



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)






Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Radice, Giles


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Levitt, Tom
Rendel, David


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Linton, Martin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Jeff


Lock, David
Rooney, Terry


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sanders, Adrian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Singh, Marsha


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spellar, John


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michael, Alun
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Milburn, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mitchell, Austin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham


Moore, Michael
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moran, Ms Margaret
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mullin, Chris
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Oaten, Mark
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Eddie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Olner, Bill
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Öpik, Lembit
Watts, David


Organ, Mrs Diana
White, Brian


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wicks, Malcolm


Palmer, Dr Nick
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)





Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Worthington, Tony


Wills, Michael
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Woolas, Phil
Mr. David Clelland and



Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A written question tabled by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) relating to the siting of the Welsh assembly was due to be answered today. However, the Library has made it clear that it has not been answered today, but is likely to be answered tomorrow. We have been told that Opposition spokesmen will be telephoned before the announcement of the siting of the assembly, but no Conservative spokesman on Welsh affairs has been contacted. A Welsh journalist has told me that the announcement is expected tomorrow and that it will be made from the Welsh Office in Cardiff.
Has the Secretary of State for Wales told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he wishes to make a statement first to the House of Commons on the siting of the Welsh assembly—which is one of the most important announcements that he is likely to make to the House—so that hon. Members of all parties can question him on his decision? If he has not, is not this yet another backward step and proof of the Government sidelining the House on an important issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statement that might be made on the matter.

Clause 1

NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after '(4)', insert
'Subject to subsection (4A) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'(4A) As soon as possible after 16th February in each pre-election year the Boundary Commission shall—

(a) ascertain whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for England, Scotland and Wales, and
(b) make by order such modifications to any of the number of MEPs specified in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) as may be necessary to ensure that result.'.

Mr. Clappison: The amendments are designed to explore the future distribution of seats between England, Scotland and Wales. The Bill contains a mechanism for redistributing seats between the 11 regions in England, but there is no such mechanism for redistributing seats between England, Scotland and Wales. That feature of the Bill has attracted some comment and led to questions in some quarters about whether it was an oversight by the Government. If it is not an oversight, and if there is a reason for the difference, perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is.
Many people who have examined the Bill have wondered why the Government have chosen to deal with the distribution of seats in the way they have. We want to hear about the Government's approach, against the background of fairness and equity, in the Bill and in all such legislation affecting the redistribution of seats. We look forward to hearing the Government's explanation.

Mr. George Howarth: The amendments would require the boundary commission to perform a calculation to determine whether the division of seats between England, Scotland and Wales ensured that the ratio of MEPs to electors across Britain was, as nearly as possible, the same, and, if not, to make an order to make the necessary adjustment. Clause 1 sets out the number of MEPs that each part of the UK will return: England has 71, Scotland eight, Wales five, and Northern Ireland three.
I listened carefully to the brief speech that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made in support of the amendments, but he has not made much of a case for them. They would require the boundary commission to perform the calculation to which I have referred. There is nothing to be added to what has already been said on that subject.
For some reason, the hon. Gentleman has left out Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that was an oversight or whether there was a specific reason for his doing so. In any event, that would create difficulties, because Northern Ireland forms part of the whole.
I know that there has been some concern about the division of MEPs between the component parts of the UK. Indeed, that point was debated in different ways at earlier stages of our deliberations. Let me put the record straight on one very important fact: the Bill does not change the allocation of MEPs between the constituent parts of the UK. The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, in its current form, has on its face exactly the division of MEPs for which clause 1 of this Bill provides. Let me enlighten the House about how that division came about.
In the early 1990s, as a consequence of German reunification, the number of MEPs to which the UK was entitled was increased from 81 to 87. The then Conservative Government brought forward a Bill to provide for an allocation of 71 MEPs for England, eight for Scotland and five for Wales. That Bill became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993, and it is those numbers that this Bill replicates.
It is worth noting that since the very first direct elections to the European Parliament, the number of MEPs that each part of the United Kingdom will return has always been set out on the face of the statute. We see no reason to depart from this tradition. Dividing up Members between the parts of the United Kingdom is Parliament's prerogative, and we believe that it should remain so. Indeed, the importance of that was demonstrated in the discussion following a contribution earlier in the Bill's proceedings by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who tried to persuade us that Scotland should have an extra MEP.
In the light of what I have said, and because the Bill follows the precedent, I invite the hon. Member for Hertsmere—

Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will give way, but only briefly as I want the hon. Member for Hertsmere to respond to my comments.

Mr. Sayeed: Can the Minister tell the House the highest and lowest ratios of electors per MEP that currently appertain?

Mr. Howarth: No, not without spending five minutes looking it up. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that, under the current system, the ratio is about 500,000 electors per MEP. There is some variation, in the tens of thousands, each side of that figure. Clearly, as we are having a regional list system, that will vary considerably.
I return to my earlier point. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Syms: This is an important issue. Apportionment between countries goes back partly to the 1944 Speaker's conference, when certain guidance was given on the distribution of seats between Scotland, Wales and England. Under the first-past-the-post system, account can be taken of some degree of sparsity of population and geographic conditions. That is, in effect, the basis of the present system.
I have been present for most stages of the Bill's consideration and I have heard words such as "proportional", "fair" and "inclusive". However, we end up with a Bill where England has 83.3 per cent. of the electorate of the United Kingdom but only 81.6 per cent. of the UK's MEPs. The reality is that England is 1.7 MEPs under quota. If there were ever an opportunity to equalise the electorate across the United Kingdom, or certainly Great Britain, as the amendment would, it is before us. No one has yet explained to me why England does not have fair representation.
I accept that when we subdivide 87 seats, we do not end up with a perfect quota. The figures do not emerge perfectly. However, there is certainly a claim for one additional seat in England, and possibly two. It is odd that a Bill that is built on fair votes, proportionality, inclusiveness and fairness to everybody succeeds in producing arrangements based on 83.3 per cent. of the electorate having only 81.6 per cent. of the votes.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is making an important point. In an attempt to try to find some middle ground between the two Front Benches, the Opposition, have not challenged the number of seats in the 1999 election, although a case could be made for England to have another seat, as my hon. Friend is showing with great eloquence. We are seeking to put in place a fair and impartial mechanism for the future so that, when there are transitions of people, it will be possible for an independent organisation to make representations and give advice to the House about future numbers, rather than our challenging the numbers for next year.

Mr. Syms: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. However, there is concern that if we do not


have fair distribution now, precedents might be set, with the result that future redistributions, future votes and future allocations of seats may be based on an unfair formula between England, Scotland and Wales—the main countries of Great Britain. That would be our concern.
That is particularly so because we know, given the terms of the Bill, that the redistribution of seats between regions will be decided by the Home Secretary and not by an independent boundary commission. That being so, the issue is very much in the political domain.
As I have said, England has 83.3 per cent. of the UK electorate, but it will have only 81.6 per cent. of the seats. It is worth making it known to the Government that that is of great concern to us.
The Minister talked about Northern Ireland, which is excluded from the amendment. Northern Ireland has a quota of 2.7 per cent., which means that there would be some doubt about a third seat. However, we all appreciate that there is a special circumstance for the Province. From a political perspective, three seats would, in effect, allow two Protestant seats and one Catholic to have representation within the European Parliament. That is a somewhat crude division, but the withdrawal of one seat, even in the absence of qualification for quota, might lead to political problems in Northern Ireland. In the context of what is good for the United Kingdom, we all might agree that there could be a persuasive argument for a third seat for Northern Ireland.
There is certainly not fair distribution. If the Bill means anything, it is about equality of votes. As a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, I stress that it would not be my overwhelming argument, but I have heard Ministers say that the Bill is about fairness of votes, inclusivity and proportionality. Yet we do not have proportional distribution.
What has gone wrong? As we said earlier, the Government have allocated seats on the basis of an English quota and have then added the seats of Wales and Scotland. No United Kingdom quota has been put forward, so there is not a fair allocation of seats within the countries of the Union.
I do not wish to pursue the point. I wish only to emphasise that there will not be a fair allocation. I stress also that our concerns are for the future. There will come a stage when shifts of population will mean that seats have to be reallocated. When the new system takes effect at the first election, we do not want proportionality for everyone except the English.

Mr. Sayeed: When debating the Scottish Parliament, many of us have complained about over-representation by Scottish Members in this Parliament. We asked the Government to reduce that representation so that there would be a balance with English Members. The Government refused to do that. They said, "You will have to wait for the regular report of the boundary commission." They did not explain why we would have to wait for it. Equally, they did not explain why a report could not be produced earlier. We shall have to wait, and we all know that that could mean that there will not be even representation between English and Scottish Members for about 12 or 15 years.
Why should we be asked to trust the Government on this issue? The amendment is fairly simple; it is asking only for equity. I heard what my right hon. Friend

the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said. I recognise that we did not over-press our position and that perhaps we started off from the wrong position, which means that England is almost two seats under-represented. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain to me later why we did not push the matter a bit harder. However, the decision has been made.
The two simple amendments before us are designed to try to produce a system of equity. That is all. They are designed to increase representation so that it is up to date, and to keep it up to date. We all know that demographic changes take place in the United Kingdom or Great Britain. People move from one area to another. Given the enormous areas that have been suggested by the Government—regions—the problems of depopulated areas no longer apply. Therefore, there is no reason for there not to be an even balance with an equal number of electors per MEP under the new arrangement.
Earlier, there might have been a reason, because of depopulated areas, to have slight imbalance and favouritism towards, for example, depopulated areas in Wales and Scotland. However, under the enormous regional areas for electing MEPs, there is no reason for that approach. In equity and fairness, the Government should accept the amendments, because they are fair. They say, "Let us have the same number of electors per MEP throughout Great Britain."

Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the debate, including the response from the Under-Secretary of State. Well-informed contributions have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).
The Opposition wanted to know why the redistributive mechanism should be different in England, Scotland and Wales. The question has been raised by many others who have considered the proposed legislation. We wanted an answer. We wanted to know how the Government proposed to deal, as the Bill stands, with future population changes, in whatever direction, between Scotland, Wales and England.
I was not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response. We were justified in asking whether the Government were responsible for an oversight. We are still pondering why they have chosen to make a distinction within the redistributive mechanism for future population changes.
We are still concerned, but, bearing in mind the lateness of the hour and the need to make progress, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 41, after 'State', insert
', save that the day appointed by the Secretary of State shall not be a day of the week or a date of special religious significance on which the holding of an election would be incompatible with the historic teaching and practices of any Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain'.
I welcome the assurance given by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), in an earlier debate, that there was no prospect of the 1999 election being held on a Sunday. That was a positive comment. She accused me of being


churlish—or some synonym—in my response, so let me start by welcoming unequivocally the fact that there will be no election on a Sunday next year. Having said that, we want to come back to this issue, for it raises longer-term issues.
There is no legal requirement for elections in this country to be held on a Thursday. No doubt somebody, on behalf of the Minister, has looked at history to see when elections started to be held on that day. It seems that it became the practice in the 1930s, and it has served us well for 60 to 65 years. I can only speculate that it might have had something to do with early closing day, or some other matter, in the 1930s and 1940s. Whatever the reason, it has become established.
One can approach the issue another way and say that it is clear why elections were not held on other days. It is a matter of regret to many—but we are not here to make moral judgments—that the influence of religious belief in society 50 or 60 years ago was unquestionably stronger than it is today, so the idea of holding an election on a Sunday would never have crossed the minds of my grandfather's generation. Similarly, there was at that time a strong Jewish community in this country, so it would not have crossed the minds of many that it would be a good idea to hold an election on a Saturday.
The truth is that we live in a different world, up to a point. We live much more flexible and mobile lives than people lived then. People now are as busy at weekends as during the week. Members of Parliament are not the only ones affected in that regard. Indeed, as a result of the nation's increased prosperity, far more people are able to enjoy the weekends in a variety of ways, with various activities, and to enjoy them further from home than my grandfather's, or, indeed, my father's, generation could have.
The prima facie assumptions that turnout would be higher if we voted on a weekend, that it would be more convenient for people to vote then or that people would have more time to walk to the local school to vote seemed perfectly fair ones for the Government to make, but those are aspirations. They are a reflection of political will, rather than of real life.
I return to the sensitivity of people's religious beliefs, as it is at the heart of the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for not calling into question my sincerity, even if we did not have a meeting of minds on this issue.
I think that the Minister without Portfolio said that there are six major religions in this country and that the beliefs of all of them will be reflected in the millennium dome. I shall choose three of those religions. I went to the "Larousse Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions", because, if I can convince the Government that this is not some personal quirk and that I am reflecting a well established tradition among three of the six major religions, that might be a more persuasive argument than my oratory.
I looked up Islam. Under the heading "Friday Prayer In Islam"—those are not my words, and I am not attributing Friday to that great religion—the dictionary says:
Taking part in prayer…five times daily is a fundamental responsibility for Muslims. The five daily prayers take place at sunrise, noon, late afternoon, sunset, and after dark. The Friday noon

prayer is of special significance. It is performed in a large mosque in the presence of a congregation of 40 or more. During the Friday Prayer an Imam or other competent preacher delivers an address lasting about 15 to 30 minutes. Attendance at the Friday Prayer is considered a duty for Muslim believers if they are free at that time, and business during this hour is forbidden, although it may be conducted at other times during the day. Friday is the Muslim day of assembly".
There has never been an argument that those who have strong religious beliefs and convictions spend all day, from morning to evening, in prayer, worship and contemplation, so that, by definition, they are not free to do anything else. The argument has always been that beliefs and religious convictions for all the major religions are focused on one day a week that is special. Friday is clearly that day for Muslims.
I then looked up the Jewish faith, and the heading "Sabbath". The dictionary says:
The seventh day of the week, which in Jewish belief is designated a day of rest and cessation from labour, beginning just before sunset on Fridays and lasting until nightfall on Saturday, when candles are lit to signify the end of a holy time. The laws of Sabbath observance derive from a short ban found in the Pentateuch"—
Exodus 20 and 31 for those want to check my source of reference—
and from God's own rest in the Genesis creation account.
Even
in more liberal Reform Judaism the Sabbath is mainly a day of worship.
Therefore, the Jewish religious day starts on Friday evening and goes through to Saturday evening, and it is considered to be a holy time.
I then turned to the paragraph headed "Sunday". It states:
The day of the week set aside by the Christian religion for divine worship mainly in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. As early as New Testament times it replaced the Jewish Sabbath, when Paul and the Christians of Troas gathered on the first day of the week to `break bread' (Acts 20), and it is called 'the Lord's day' (Rev 1).
This is not meant to be, nor will it become, a sermon or a theological treatise.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: It could become a bore.

7 pm

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Only for hon. Members with minds like the hon. Gentleman's. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not take quite so kindly to his insensitivity to their religious beliefs as others in the House.
Britain has a tradition which has stood us in good stead for 60 odd years in that major elections are held on a Thursday. Britain has an even more important tradition, which is that people have freedom of religion and freedom to practise their religion, and around that has grown a sensitivity to the religious beliefs of others even when we may not ourselves share those beliefs. I am at a loss to understand why a Government who rightly—I have no difficulty with the Government's position—talk about acting appropriately in a multicultural society, which is also a multi-faith society, have so much difficulty in recognising the sensitivities of millions of people on this issue.

Mr. Allan: Can the right hon. Gentleman advise us—I ask that in a genuine spirit of inquiry, because Liberal Democrats hope for a free vote on the matter—on the meaning, in amendment No. 3, of the phrase
a date of special religious significance"?
I understand the points that he has made about Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, but what does that phrase encompass?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I have tried to set the matter out not in my words but in those of a more independent and scholarly framework, to remove from the debate any element of partisanship. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) thought that I had been less than generous and gracious in my response to the Minister on the last occasion. Her comments came as something of a surprise, so I have made a determined effort this time not to create any sense of partisanship. We are talking about the need to be sensitive to one of the most fundamental rights and privileges that the House is established to preserve.

Mr. Maclennan: It was in a genuine spirit of inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) put his question. The right hon. Gentleman has used in the amendment, not a term of art but a form of words that covers a wide range of possibilities, and its lack of precision is one of the difficulties that we face. To take a brief example, the Roman Catholic Church has a number of holy days of obligation, which are undoubtedly days of religious significance, and special. They do not happen necessarily to fall on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's submission that such a day would be ruled out, and would he wish it to be ruled out? If so, we will have to consider with great care the practices and beliefs of many other religions. The matter is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman may have acknowledged.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. When the elections fall is not for the House to decide. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as part of our membership of the EU, the week in which elections are to be held is uniform throughout the EU. I shall not use the technical word, but flexibility was given so that countries could choose the appropriate days within—I think that I am right in saying—the second part of the designated week.
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Had the House had flexibility to decide when an election should be held, we would have had to be more precise in the wording of our amendment to take account of the right hon. Gentleman's legitimate points. We do not have that freedom. The week is set, and 15 countries have to decide whether to have elections on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. A number, including us, have them on a Thursday, and a number have them on a Sunday. I say that openly, because it is a matter of record which everyone understands.
Some may ask whether I am suggesting that there is less sensitivity to religious beliefs in other European countries. I am happy to say that that is not an issue for which we have any responsibility. People have their different traditions, and those traditions have built up. I am not being critical of anyone else: we are talking about Britain, our traditions and practices and our sensitivities to the religious beliefs of others.
Therefore, I want to try one last time to persuade the Minister to accept that this is a genuine issue. I am perfectly happy to concede that the world will not stop and the country will not necessarily go any faster to heaven or hell as a result of what the Government ultimately decide should be the election day in Britain. However, I want to impress on the Minister the fact that, in shifting from a Thursday, which affects none of the major sensitivities that the other three days do, he is running the risk of causing genuine offence to people whose religious beliefs will be held to account by that change. It is in that spirit that I ask him one last time to consider stating in the Bill that elections will be on Thursdays.

Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised two points which are slightly off the main point but are of significance. I appreciate the thoughtful and non-partisan way in which he introduced this potentially sensitive subject. He mentioned the tradition of Thursday voting. To my knowledge, it is pre-war. I would not like to say when it started, but I can remember some local government elections as late as the 1960s being held on different weekdays. In Huyton, where I lived, voting was on a Thursday, but in Liverpool it was on a Wednesday. I am not sure what the origins of that were, but certainly there were some variations at local government level as late as the 1960s.
The amendment would bar elections from being held on a day of the week or date of religious significance, although it does not define which religions it would cover. It would in effect guarantee that European parliamentary elections continue to be held on a Thursday, and I shall explain why in a minute.
We discussed the appropriate day of the week earlier in our proceedings, and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the debate that he had with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin). Many of the arguments have therefore been fully covered. The amendment is unnecessary, because it is almost impossible to find a better day than Thursday, and I shall repeat some of the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that the wording of the amendment lacked precision. I suspect that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire deliberately worded the amendment in that way because of his sensitivity to various faiths. If we take his argument to its logical conclusion, we must point out that certain religious festivals fall on a Thursday. If we are too precise, we might end up in difficulty. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in his recent journey through the faiths, is aware that the feast of Corpus Christi falls on a Thursday generally in the first half of June. I suspect that that would not be considered to bar Roman Catholics from voting, but it could be construed to be sensitive, because it is an important religious festival.
In addition to the significance of Fridays and Saturdays for Muslims and Jews, and Sundays for Christians, there is the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which can also fall in the first half of June. For all I know, there may be other


such festivals that are significant to other faiths, so we may find it difficult to pursue the argument to the nth degree.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am encouraged, at least thus far, by the Minister's tone. If all that prevents him from accepting the amendment is its drafting, as the Bill will have to return to another place so that the Government amendments are dealt with, the Government could obviate that problem by helping with the redrafting of this amendment.

Mr. Howarth: I hope to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary. If it were passed, we could find ourselves unable to hold an election at any time within the period agreed by the Council. Whatever position the right hon. Gentleman takes on Europe, I am sure that he would not want us to end up in that difficulty.
I repeat a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made earlier in our proceedings. She said that there was no way in which the 1999 European elections would not be held on a Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, for the purposes of the next European elections, we shall not consider an alternative day of the week.

Mr. Sayeed: Before the Minister finally confirms that he has no intention of introducing an alternative amendment in the other place at some future date to deal with the problem that my right hon. Friend has outlined, will he consider the fact that, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, some sects are not allowed to work or travel at any time during a holy day? All three of those major religions are well represented in this country. The definition of "work" includes voting, so unless the three holy days are excluded, which leaves only Thursday, a sect of a major religion will automatically be disfranchised.

Mr. Howarth: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and, by referring to the scriptures of many faiths, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made that point effectively. I agree that that would create difficulties. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) discussed the problems that some of her constituents would face if we had Sunday voting. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because it is important, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has guaranteed that we have no intention—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me proceed for a moment—

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I wish to be helpful.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is always helpful.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister. I wanted to intervene now because what I am about to

ask may take a moment or two to consider, or the Minister may just rule it out. The Home Secretary is in the Chamber listening to this debate. If the Minister, with the Home Secretary's agreement, were to assure the House that, during this Government's term in office—he will understand that it will last for only one Parliament—they will not shift from a Thursday, I would be happy to settle for that and not push the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman made an aside that this Government would be in power for only one Parliament. I am sure that he is right, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is bound to have a reshuffle in the next Parliament. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members are left long enough, they find anything amusing.
I cannot, give the right hon. Gentleman that absolute guarantee, because I do not know what discussions we shall have or what pressures will come along. The right hon. Gentleman has been in government and knows that it is not always possible to give such guarantees on the hoof. However, I shall offer him an option, which is better than guaranteeing what will happen in another place or in the lifetime of this Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I chair a working party on electoral procedures. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are represented on that working party, which also consists of a wide range of experts who take advice from many sources. When the working party's findings are published, they will be the subject of wider consultation. We are looking at the possibility of Sunday voting. As part of our serious review of electoral procedures—there is no partisan slant to our work—I undertake to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are given the fullest possible consideration and that they form a part of our considerations, so that, before we come up with our final recommendations, all those points are considered. The legitimate concerns about the days of the week that are important to those major faiths will thus be fully taken into account.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman finds that helpful, because it is intended in a helpful spirit to deal with his point.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I have been unable to contribute to the debate, because I have almost lost my voice.
Will the review consider phasing elections over several days, perhaps from Thursday to Sunday, or has that been ruled out? We must take account of various groups' views, about which hon. Members have spoken with great respect.

Mr. Howarth: Nothing has been ruled in or out at this stage. The working party's terms of reference are wide enough to enable us to consider almost anything, but I am sensitive to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. I hope that my assurance that the working party will give due weight to the arguments will enable him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: This has been a good, comprehensive debate. I welcome the Minister's open-mindedness


on these sensitive issues, which are matters of conscience for some hon. Members. However, when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) remarked that changing to weekend voting would not produce a higher turnout, I thought of the university lecturer who objected to lecturing on Wednesdays because that interfered with two weekends. I hope that we will not be too sensitive to speculation that the British weekend might rule out voting for some people.
My guess is that weekend voting would help turnout, and that it is better not to hold the election on a working day. The Government should consider weekend voting in their review, but I would not advocate change without the fullest consultation with the Churches. People will take different views about the nature of religious obligation: for some people, attending a church or a place of worship may be sufficient to discharge their obligation and recognise the specialness of the Sabbath or of a particular religious day, whereas for others, voting may be incompatible with observing a particular holy day.
However, citizens have civic obligations, and they should be rendered, in this case by exercising their vote. We should make that as easy as possible. The Christian religion's injunction
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's
allows many Christians to discharge their civic and religious duties without conflict, but that is not a universal view, even within the Christian faiths.
I hope that the Minister will solicit information from people who may be touched adversely in their spiritual devotions by a change in the law, and will keep an open mind until the evidence is before him.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I listened carefully to the Minister. I am anxious that, although he said that he would listen to people's views, he did not go a step further and say that people's religious sensitivities could raise insuperable barriers to changing the day of voting to Sunday.
Elections are held on Sundays in many other countries in the European Union, and they are no less or more religious than this country. But such countries have a tradition of voting on Sunday: people may go to mass in the morning and have a cup of coffee before they vote. The traditions here are different, and many Protestant communities in this country, especially the evangelical communities, think that the specialness of Sunday is slipping away following the passing of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. They are sensitive about the issue, which the Minister understands, and I am sure that the Government will take those sensitivities into account in the review.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have had a good debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for the tone of his response to my points. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is right about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. But that is not a prima facie case for making it as difficult as possible for people to fulfil both those obligations. I was slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, given the

tradition from which he comes and which he represents in the House, was open to making that more difficult. Maintaining the status quo would make it less difficult.
I genuinely tried to help the Minister. I sat on the Government Front Bench for several years, and understand that he may be loth to enshrine a proposal in statute at this stage because arguments are being put to him and the review is under way. With that in mind, I thought that an interim non-statutory agreement could have been reached. An assurance from the Minister, backed by the Home Secretary, on such an agreement would, in the tradition of the House, have been accepted as binding. That would have seen us through the next few years, and created space for him to conduct his review without presumptions being made about it.
However, the Minister did not find that acceptable. Of course I am grateful for his willingness to reflect on the views that have been expressed, and to ensure that they are taken into account in any preliminary consultation document. However, his unwillingness to reach a statutory or non-statutory agreement will make many people, rightly or wrongly, assume that the Government have an alternative agenda.
I face a dilemma. When I highlighted disagreements between the Front Benches in a previous debate on this matter, I was accused of being ungracious, so I say as graciously as I can that we do not agree with the Minister, because this is a matter of principle. I seldom use those words in my political life, because they tend to get people into trouble. One of the most fundamental tasks of this House is the defence of the rights of minorities. If this House does not defend their rights, who will?

Mrs. Ewing: I accused the right hon. Gentleman of being ungracious. Does he accept that the 1999 European elections will be held on a Thursday, and that thereafter the matter should be discussed and decided on by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and Westminster?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is yes, because that is how I started my speech when I moved the amendment. It is tempting, but I will not go down the road of the interrelationships between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and this place, not least because I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, who I am sure has no idea what those interrelationships will be.
This issue is easy to dismiss. It may be that an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members have religious convictions and beliefs but would not find a change in the voting day to be of religious offence. It is probably true of most of us, but it is not true of some in the Muslim faith, some in the Jewish faith or some in the Christian faith. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, it is a cause of particular concern to those in the Christian faith from the evangelical tradition, from which my hon. Friend knows I spring.
It is with regret and as much grace as I can muster that I say to the Minister that this is a matter of genuine significance. It is a matter of sensitivity and of this House defending the rights of minorities. For all those reasons, and given the Minister's response, I fear that we will press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. George Howarth: We have been treated to the great conviction of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I am not trying to belittle it, and I accept that he considers this a matter of principle. However, I am a little concerned that, during the past 18 years of Conservative Government, in which the right hon. Gentleman served in various capacities, I cannot remember this great matter of principle ever being raised or legislated upon.
Leaving that aside, from his reading the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties that different days of the week cause for different faiths, and he knows that there is no simple solution. The irony is that the logic of his amendment would lead us right back to Thursday voting. I accept that that is the case. However, if we take that logic further and take into account various religious feast days and so on, it might make it impossible to hold elections on a Thursday.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, because of the way in which some people want to celebrate the day they consider to be the day of rest or the holy day, voting on such days would be impossible for them. That is why we have ended up with Thursdays. The difficulty is that not everybody feels the same way. I voted against Sunday shopping, but, being honest, although I go to services at my local parish church most Sundays, I sometimes then go shopping with my wife, because that may be the only opportunity I get to go shopping with her.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire described the life-style differences very well. He said that society has changed and that there is greater flexibility in the way that people live their lives. Those facts have to be taken into account when we consider this matter. I will consider this in the working party on electoral procedures, but I believe that, in pursuing the amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is making a gesture. It would not have any effect even if it were passed. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 222.

Division No. 203]
[7.33 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Faber, David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Flight, Howard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gray, James


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brazier, Julian
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Evans, Nigel
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui





Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Swayne, Desmond


MacKay, Andrew
Syms, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Matins, Humfrey
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tyrie, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Norman, Archie
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Prior, David
Woodward, Shaun


Randall, John
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruffley, David
Mr. James Cran and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Nigel Waterson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cohen, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Coleman, Iain


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Tony


Allan, Richard
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corston, Ms Jean


Atkins, Charlotte
Cotter, Brian


Austin, John
Cranston, Ross


Baker, Norman
Cummings, John


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Banks, Tony
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benton, Joe
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Roger
Drew, David


Betts, Clive
Drown, Ms Julia


Blizzard, Bob
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boateng, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Breed, Colin
Flynn, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burden, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Burnett, John
Gapes, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Gorrie, Donald


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chidgey, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Church, Ms Judith
Hancock, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin






Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pike, Peter L


Ingram, Adam
Plaskitt, James


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Purchase, Ken


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rammell, Bill


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rendel, David


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ruane, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ryan, Ms Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sanders, Adrian


Kingham, Ms Tess
Savidge, Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Shaw, Jonathan


Linton, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lock, David
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McAvoy, Thomas
Southworth, Ms Helen


McCabe, Steve
Spellar, John


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


McDonagh, Siobhain
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McDonnell, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McFall, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McIsaac, Shona
Stinchcombe, Paul


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Stoate, Dr Howard


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


MacShane, Denis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mactaggart, Fiona
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McWilliam, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mallaber, Judy
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Todd, Mark


Martlew, Eric
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Merron, Gillian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Milburn, Alan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Ms Joan


Moffatt, Laura
Wareing, Robert N


Moore, Michael
Watts, David


Moran, Ms Margaret
White, Brian


Morley, Elliot
Wicks, Malcolm


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wills, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mountford, Kali
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Norris, Dan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


O'Hara, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


Olner, Bill
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Öpik, Lembit
Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

NEW SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, at end insert
', but no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State has submitted a report to both Houses of Parliament giving details of the calculations carried out in the course of the procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.'.
The amendment has two clear and vital objectives. One is to achieve greater openness in future decisions about arrangements for European elections, and the second is to ensure greater accuracy in the apportionment of Members of the European Parliament between electoral regions. I am sure that the House will agree that both those aims are essential to our fundamental democratic process.
Throughout the Committee stage, Conservative Members sought to draw attention to the serious deficiencies in the procedures leading to the Bill's publication. The Bill is being imposed on the country without any prior discussion, either within Parliament or outside. The Government failed to publish a White Paper outlining their plans. As a consequence, there was no public consultation. As we have heard, there was a focus group involving a maximum of 48 people, but that hardly rates as a public consultation.
Despite the Prime Minister's professed faith in the parliamentary boundary commission, it was not consulted, thus denying the public any opportunity to express a view on the arrangements by which their MEPs will be elected. Therefore, the Government have no way of knowing whether voters are satisfied that the allocation of MEPs to electoral regions is fair, and whether the process has been both open and accountable. Clearly, it has not been open and accountable, because the Government have simply imposed their preferred solution and, in so doing, have shown contempt for both the House and the public at large.
What of the future? The schedule provides the only mechanism in the Bill for any review of the arrangements. Notwithstanding the Home Secretary's commitment to review the experience of the election next year under this Bill, the fact remains that this is the only provision in the Bill that we can be certain provides an arrangement for such a review. However, that arrangement lies entirely within the gift of the Home Secretary. He will consider whether the ratio of electors to MEPs requires adjustment, and he will make, by order, such amendments to the distribution of seats as he considers necessary.
We say that, before the Home Secretary does any such thing, he should at least submit a report to both Houses of Parliament giving details of his calculations. Such a report would not only ensure greater openness, which we think is essential, but allow the House the opportunity to seek a proper explanation of his calculations because we need to test their accuracy.
Why should that be necessary? As we have seen, in introducing the Bill to the House, the Home Secretary has already shown that maths is not his best subject. As he admitted in Committee, he made an error in his explanation of the divisors used in the seat allocation and, by consequence, misled the House. Let me say straight


away that we fully accept that it was unintentional, but that rather makes our point. It is not that the Home Secretary knew that he got it wrong, but the fact that he did not know that he had got it wrong. How can anyone have any confidence that he or a future Home Secretary, doubtless with access to the same advice, can be relied upon to reach the right decision?
There is rather more to it than meets the eye. During the debate in Committee on 26 February, the Home Secretary argued that the eminent Professor Ian Maclean, head of politics at Nuffield college, Oxford, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred earlier, had got it wrong in suggesting that the Government had used a divisor in the process of seat allocation. He insisted:
It is a very simple system that does not need divisors."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 549.]
That is not what the eminent Professor believes. Indeed, since that debate, Professor Maclean has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The House would do well to take note of what he says.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman referred to it earlier.

Mr. Greenway: No. It is an entirely different matter and I suspect that it is even more important.
After challenging what the Home Secretary said at column 549, Professor Maclean writes:
The procedure he then outlines in his next paragraph, as he did in a letter to me, is that he takes a dividend, (the electorate of England), divides it by a divisor (71) and gets a quotient (just over 521,000 electors per MEP). He then assigns these quotients to the regions. Each region, of course, is exactly entitled to a whole number plus a fraction of MEPs. So how does the Secretary of State proceed 'in such a way as to ensure that the sum of divergencies in each of the nine regions—ignoring plus or minus signs—was as low as possible'?
The professor continues:
I think he thinks that, as he and his officials presumably did this by hand, they were not using a divisor. But they were really speaking prose. To guarantee that you get the result of this calculation right, you must use one of three divisors. In the American literature they are the Dean, Huntington and Webster divisors.
We have had d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague; now we have the Dean, Huntington and Webster divisors.
The professor continues:
On different interpretations of making 'the ratio of registered electors to MEPs the same', each one of these is the only correct divisor to use.
This is the crunch:
Webster is another name for Sainte-Lague. So Sainte-Lague is one of the three divisors that the language of the Schedule mandates him to use.
So there we have it. There is a divisor, and it is clearly a political decision which divisor is used.
For now, the public appear disinterested in the Government's meddling with our democratic process—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said in an earlier debate, they were unaware of what was happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to the disinterest of

the fourth estate, and I agree with him too, but, in spite of the sea of disinterest, the position may change come the election next year. However, that does not mean that the issues are unimportant and do not matter—far from it. The House should require the Government to agree on a procedure that will help the Home Secretary to make a better fist of it next time. I am not seeking to personalise the debate, but in embarking on a system of proportional representation, we have ventured into uncharted waters.
We have been asked to accept that the allocation of MEPs is fair, yet few people have the knowledge or experience to know whether it is the best that it could be and entirely accurate. The fact that we appear to have little choice but to accept it for now is no excuse for failing to put on the face of the Bill a mechanism to give everyone the chance of doing a better job next time.
Parliament has a right to be taken seriously, and its views and opinions cannot simply be brushed aside out of political expediency. I am glad that the Home Secretary is to reply to the debate. The fact that he did not fully grasp what he was doing should be a warning to the House of the perils of accepting anything at face value.
I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's explanation of why he might think it wrong to require a future Home Secretary to publish a report on the calculations on which he has based any future changes on the allocation of MEPs between the regions, as that is our simple proposition. It would not delay matters unnecessarily, but it would ensure greater openness and allow the House the opportunity to test for itself the accuracy on which any future changes are based. That is our fundamental democratic right: therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Straw: As I hope the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will accept, I do indeed take Parliament seriously, and believe that Ministers should be held properly to account, particularly for such decisions. Although I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, I shall not pick him up too much on whether or not a system of calculating the allocation of MEPs to each of the regions follows the Sainte-Lague or Webster divisors, or a different system.
I did not say that we did not use divisors to achieve the result—of course we had to do so, as I explained at column 549 on 26 February. However, the Sainte-Lague and d'Hondt divisors use an advancing series of numbers by which various other numbers are then subject to division. D'Hondt uses the series one, two, three, four, five and Sainte-Lague uses one, three, five, seven, nine. As the House now famously knows, Sainte-Lague modified begins with 1.4, which is the square root of two, and then follows the sequence three, five, seven, nine.
I am happy for the ombudsman to examine all the files in the Home Office. It may be, as Professor Maclean is claiming, that we reached a similar result to Sainte-Lague, but we did not use that system. We used a system of ascertaining the lowest sum of the divergencies, as I have explained.
What is important, and goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument, is that the public and Parliament should be satisfied that the system being used to allocate the number of MEPs to each region is entirely fair and transparent, and that people can see how it operates so that any error or worse can be exposed.


It is not true that the arrangement for settling the allocation of MEPs between each region is, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, in the gift of the Secretary of State. Any Secretary of State, whether myself or a successor, will be bound by the provisions of schedule 1(4), which requires the Secretary of State in the year preceding any election to
consider whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for every electoral region in England and…make by order such amendments of (3) of the Table as he considers necessary"—
not desirable, but necessary—
to ensure that result
That gives the Secretary of State virtually no discretion whatsoever, except to apply the rules of arithmetic accurately. If he fails to do that, he may be subject to account in Parliament and, as this is subordinate legislation, to judicial review in the courts.
8 pm
I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). In the amendment, he calls for an order-making power by which a report is made to Parliament before the Secretary of State makes a decision. The Secretary of State can have a decision brought into effect only by order made to the House under the negative resolution procedure, as set out in paragraph (7). No changes come into force unless they have received the approval of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Then there is the question whether Parliament should be informed of the changes that the Secretary of State has in mind and whether the arithmetic should be laid on the Table of the House in advance of any order being made. That is the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I agree with him, and I give an undertaking to the House that the detail of the arithmetic and all the calculations made under that paragraph will be put before the House by way of a written answer as soon as they are made, and well in advance of any order being made. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his amendment to a vote.

Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his response and for the reassurance he has given to the House. Clearly what we wanted—a report to the House before any order is laid—is precisely what he has in mind, and we are grateful to him for that. As a consequence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 28.
Let me say at the outset that this is a probing amendment. The fact that at this late stage in our consideration of the Bill, the last amendment to be considered on Report is a probing amendment says something about the nature of the Bill and its lack of clarity. A parliamentary election based on huge electoral

regions under a proportional representation system will be a wholly new experience for the people of Great Britain. More to the point, it will be a wholly new experience for the people charged with the conduct of the election. It is the lack of any detail on the face of the Bill about how the election will be conducted that prompts us to seek clarification of some of that detail through the amendment and the short debate on it.
New paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 says that there will be returning officers for each electoral region, but gives no indication of who they will be and how they will be chosen. That has considerable relevance, given the size of the European electoral regions, so perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Secretary of State intends to select the returning officers for such huge electoral regions. The lines that our amendment would delete confirm that, by regulations that the House has not had the opportunity to approve—as far as I am aware, they have not seen the light of day—functions will be conferred on the returning officers and acting returning officers. What are those functions, and what powers will the returning officer or acting returning officer have at his disposal to fulfil them? Will the functions include training, and, if so, how long will that training last? In these days of financial stringency for local government, who will pay for it?
New paragraph 4(3) requires local authorities to place the services of their officers at the disposal of the returning officers. Does that mean every local authority within an electoral region? Why are councils given no ability to exclude certain people to whom a summons from the returning officer to take part in the conduct of the election may be both inconvenient and against the public interest? What happens if, for example, the returning officer summons a planning officer who is involved in a public inquiry, or a social services officer involved in a case of child abuse, or an education officer handling an appeal by a parent over school admissions? What of the finance officers working day and night to prepare budgets?
Ministers may well say that there is nothing new in that. Acting returning officers have to take account of the other duties of the staff on whom they wish to rely in conducting parliamentary elections now, so what is the difference? The difference is that the acting returning officer in a Westminster constituency is calling on his own colleagues, and he knows full well exactly what their duties and other responsibilities are when assessing to whom he will turn for help with the election; but, with this Bill, we are dealing with electoral regions so vast that they embrace eight or nine counties.

Mrs. Ewing: Is that a criticism of the conduct of the returning officer for the referendum in Scotland on 11 September?

Mr. Greenway: It certainly is not. My comments are addressed directly to the Bill before us, not to any other Bill. However, the hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that the whole of Scotland will be one electoral region. In London, we have 33 London boroughs, so the arrangements are a wholly new departure from anything that anyone running elections—the Scottish referendum was not an election—has previously experienced.
The House was entitled to a far better explanation of how the arrangements would work before being asked to approve the Bill. Who is going to pay for the time and


travelling costs of all those officers? What impact will there be on the conduct of local government, both in the run-up to and during the elections? Can the Minister tell us what consultations there have been with local authority associations? It would have been better if Ministers had given the House some indication of what they intend to put in the regulations and explained why the whole process appears to be so open-ended.
One point on which we can be clear and on which the Government ought to have been more candid is that the conduct of the electoral arrangements set out in the Bill will place a huge administrative burden on the shoulders of local government. Will the Minister tell us how advanced the discussions are with local government officers? Will he tell us what the Government expect of them and how they are to organise an efficient election in which the public, candidates and political parties can have full confidence?
The track record to date is hardly inspiring. It has taken three and a half months—from November, when we had Second Reading, until this week—for the Government to make up their minds on one of the most essential features of the proposals: whether to have an open or a closed list. The Minister owes the House some answers to the important questions I have posed, because this is our last opportunity to debate the arrangements. I hope that in doing so, he can give some reassurance that the conduct of the European elections will not be the administrative nightmare that many of us fear.

Mr. Allan: We are pleased to hear that the Conservatives are still probing, even at this late stage. We originally took the amendment at face value to mean that council officers and the existing election staff should not be involved in the election. That was a cause for concern.
In Committee, there was widespread agreement that our electoral staff do an excellent job, and my party feels perfectly confident in their abilities. We do not envisage the apocalyptic scenario that has once again been painted—a major meltdown of the electoral process—materialising. The vast bulk of the duties that those officers will carry out—getting the ballot boxes out, getting the ballot papers in and counting them—are identical to those that they would have to perform for any European election. The only significant change is in the method of counting, and we believe that that is a small proportion of their total duties. My party does not see the necessity for too much probing, and we hope that we can dispense with the issue and place our confidence in our acting returning officers and their staff.

Mr. Syms: In an earlier amendment, we referred to publishing the ground rules for the running of the election. With our existing system, people by and large know how it will operate. One of the difficulties with the new system is that no one has mentioned anything about how the electoral returning officers will interrelate with the party professionals and the volunteers, who have an important role in scrutinising the count.
Under the first-past-the-post system, it is straightforward—scrutineers have a sheet saying what they need to do. We will have a count for the south-east region of perhaps 1 million votes, with divisions and

divisors. The terms under which returning officers are employed and their conduct of the elections are an important feature. The amendment may tease out the Government's view.
The electoral returning officers must interact with the party professionals so that they can tell their workers how the system will work and when the count will occur, and even explain technical problems. For example, at what stage is an announcement of an election of a Member of the European Parliament made? Is it when the subdivision is done, and one person jumps up to become the candidate, or is it done at the end of the count? Those are the little technical problems which the Minister should address.
Some £4 million is budgeted to be spent on training the EROS. We have good EROS, and I have the highest opinion of them. I am sure they will do a splendid job, but there has been little neutrality up to now in terms of how they will interrelate with the party structures which, under the Bill, are very important. On a constituency basis, what normally happens is that the ERO knows all the parties and has a relationship with them. Practical matters can be discussed.
Given the size of the regions, we may need some formalised structure for the returning officers to deal with the parties who deal with the workers who turn up with their rosettes to the count. They ought to know what is going on, what will happen when and how the system will work. I would be interested to hear the Minister say more about how the EROs will interrelate with party agents, professionals and volunteers.

Mr. George Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) let us know that this was intended as a probing amendment, because I was a little surprised that he had tabled it. I have two reasons for saying that. First, the parts of schedule 2 to the Bill which the amendment would remove are not in any sense new. Virtually identical provisions exist already in the current schedule 1 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, the legislation under which elections have been conducted in the past.
The only reason why they are being replaced is that the existing schedule refers to "constituencies", whereas in future we will need to refer to "regions". No one has ever thought to remove the relevant provisions from the existing legislation, and I fail to see—and, in truth, the hon. Member for Ryedale must fail to see—what objection there can be to re-applying the provisions in the Bill. In Committee, I undertook to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on two points that the hon. Gentleman raised today. I still intend to do that, and, if he will forgive me, I shall reply in detail in due course.
The second reason why I was surprised is that the provisions which the amendment seems to seek are so obviously unnecessary. There can surely be no doubt that each region will have a returning officer, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale is not seeking to delete that provision. Equally importantly, because of the sizes of the regions proposed by the Bill, the returning officer will need support and assistance, as he will agree.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made the point very well that the obvious people to provide support are those with experience—electoral


registration officers and acting returning officers, who are by and large local government employees. They are responsible for electoral registration, the maintenance of the register and postal and proxy votes, and they have experience of the distribution of poll cards and the administration of polling stations. Clearly, they are the right people to assist. The parts of schedule 2 that the amendment would delete would make sure that those with the necessary skills and experience are available to assist the returning officer in conducting the election. Schedule 2 simply reaffirms the status quo, and is designed to ensure the efficient conduct of European parliamentary elections.
The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to the understandability of counts. I do not want to speak for his party, but I am sure that my party's agents and professionals will find out how the system works and will make sure that the party workers know how it works.
These are existing, well known and tried and tested procedures, but they will be slightly amended to take in the regional dimension. In light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Greenway: As I said, this was a probing amendment, and we do not intend to press it to a vote. The Minister is right—it would leave a hole in the Bill. However, I am not entirely sure that the Minister has answered all our questions. There is a world of difference between the European constituencies we have been used to and the proposed huge electoral regions. Given that the Minister said that he would write to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in response to the points we have made, I am content to let the matter rest at this juncture. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letters and the explanation to which we are entitled. With that sentiment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had many hours of debate—appropriately, on the Floor of the House, as this is a constitutional measure. I explained earlier to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and to the House in November, that I have always subscribed to the view that there is no single perfect electoral system for all purposes. When we consider which voting system to introduce to any particular institution, we need to consider the nature of the powers and functions of the body concerned.
The European Parliament is a representative body, and not a Parliament from which a Government are drawn. The United Kingdom can only return 87 Members to it, which means inevitably that Members of the European Parliament can never enjoy the same close links with those who elect them as Members of this Parliament do with their constituents. Moreover—regardless of whether people endorse it—the European Union already works at a regional, as well as at a national, level.
Those considerations led a committee, which was chaired by my noble Friend Lord Plant of Highfield, to propose to the Labour party that the most appropriate

system for electing MEPs was a regional one, which placed a premium on proportionality. That proposal was endorsed by the Labour party at its conference in 1993; it became a commitment in our manifesto, which was endorsed by the British people on 1 May last year.
The change will enable future British elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using a simple proportionally-based regional list system. I am pleased that it will be in place—subject to the decisions of the other place—in time for the next election to the European Parliament in 1999.
As I explained to the House, the system that we are proposing is very similar to, and shares the concept with, the one already used by France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Greece for electing their MEPs—the majority of voters in Europe use this system to elect their MEPs.
I am grateful to those hon. Members from all parties who have taken part in the debates on the Bill—given the complexity of the subject, many more hon. Members than I had expected participated. I have greatly enjoyed the debates and the stimulation not least to my arithmetical skills—or otherwise—that they have provided.
We have covered the composition of regions, by-elections and the role of the Boundary Commission, and we have provided another answer—as I said on Second Reading—to that inevitable but very difficult quiz question at Christmas: name 10 famous Belgians.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Can you name six famous Canadians?

Mr. Straw: Naming six famous Canadians is a question of which I would prefer to be given notice.
The system used in Belgium has dominated our discussions. It would allow voters to plump for one candidate on each list, unlike the system on which we have finally decided—the simple or closed list system. I shall not repeat the arguments about that.
The questions raised by the Bill have been examined in very great detail. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill, and I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have joined us in supporting it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have had a long and serious debate about the issues raised by the Bill. I agree with the Home Secretary that the debate was rightly and properly conducted on the Floor of the House, as the Bill is one of the most important constitutional matters that the House has dealt with in a long time.
Eschewing any bias, I think that I can say that the Opposition have rigorously examined the issues that the Bill raises. We have sought to do so constructively and positively. I am well aware that the Patronage Secretary and those who spend most of their time around him were nervous; they wanted the proceedings to be completed in a quarter of the time—but that is part of what they are paid for. Hon. Members have conducted themselves constructively. We have moved the issues forward, using up an appropriate, but not disproportionate, amount of time.
Conservative Members remain of the view that the Bill is bad. It is a leap in the dark, and it contravenes an approach on which, in other circumstances, the Home


Secretary and I would agree—"if it ain't broke, don't fix it". One of the most compelling aspects of the debates has been the Government's inability to explain what was so wrong with a system that had stood us in good stead since 1979 that it had to be changed. The Home Secretary rightly said that the Bill resulted from a manifesto commitment. I do not question his right to bring forward the legislation, but I do not think that the case has been made for its argument and logic.
The Bill is bad because so much of it remains to be determined. Clause by clause, we have been promised order after order. Whole chunks of secondary legislation still have to be drawn up before the Bill will make any sense. We have no idea what a registered party is, how it will be defined or how it will be implemented. It is not good law-making to leave so much undecided when primary legislation is being scrutinised. Moreover, that is not good for the democratic process. Although the Home Secretary will introduce orders, they will be unamendable and debatable only for an hour and a half, which will preclude them from the in-depth discussion that legislation of such constitutional significance deserves.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) blew the most important hole in the Bill. She said that the current system had one enormous advantage over the one envisaged in the Bill—
the connection between elected Members and their constituencies."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.]
That connection has been at the heart of British democracy for generations, and for 20 years even in terms of the European Parliament. All of us feel a sense of significance as we walk through our constituencies, knowing that the people belong to us and that we belong to them, regardless of whether they voted for us. We think, "This is my patch. These are my people. I serve them whatever they may have done on election day. All of them have a right to look to me." That has been part of the bedrock of our democracy, but the Government are tearing it apart, destroying what has worked so well for such a long time.
I understand that there are conventions in the House whereby Back Benchers will not say what they think—they do not want to embarrass the Government. That was true, for the most part, in previous Parliaments. The Home Secretary should not think, however, that Labour Members have not approached Conservative Front Benchers in the past few weeks to make it clear how unhappy they are that that fundamental link is being broken.
For that reason alone, the Bill deserves to be opposed, but there is worse. The Bill introduces another phenomenon new to British democracy. In future, electors will not be asked to vote for individuals; they will be asked to vote for parties. The link between voter and a person—with personality, gifts and disadvantages—is also to be broken. Given the tenor of our debates, it seems that Labour Front Benchers are prepared to break the link with almost simplistic ease.
We have a clearer understanding of why that is than we did before the debate. The Government are pre-eminently concerned about control, and the list system will give them control. It will give the party control, and it will give control to the manipulators.
I pay tribute—I do not do so often—to the Liberal Democrats, because they will employ a democratic system to determine the candidates and the order for their lists. The Conservative party has made it clear that we will also follow a democratic principle and allow our members in the regions—if we can find halls big enough to accommodate them all—to decide the order of our lists. However, the Labour party will go into a smoke-filled back room, with a few manipulators and control freaks, the Minister without Portfolio and a few trade union leaders, and they will decide.
The people who lecture us about the people's party will not let their members, never mind the people, decide who will go to Brussels. Lest there should be a smidgen of a thought among Labour Members that I exaggerate, I remind them that three serving Labour Members of the European Parliament have already been expelled from the party, because they would not kow-tow to the control freaks who will organise the operation.
We do not need to look into a crystal ball, because we know already what to expect from the Labour party. Whether the Bill is good for the Labour party does not concern me—well, only a little, because if it is not good for the Labour party that is an advantage. My concern this evening is that the Bill is not good for the country, although that will not bother the Government.
Although it introduces a fundamental change, the Bill gives no information to voters. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for trying to persuade the Deputy Prime Minister that they were heading for the rocks unless £20 million was spent on helping the people to understand what was about to befall them. However, he lost the argument. No rationale will be revealed and no defence made of the change. Constituencies will have 4 million, 5 million, 6 million or 7 million people, with no sense of identity and no sense of ownership of the process.
The Liberals love the Bill. They want it. We understand why, and we are not fooled by high arguments of principle about the common good or what is best for the people. The Liberals want it because it will give them an opportunity to win a few seats that otherwise they could not win. It will be good for third parties.
The Home Secretary has told us before, and he has repeated it in debates on the Bill, that he is against PR.

Mr. Straw: For Westminster.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Well, I have noted newspaper reports that the Home Secretary may be hedging his position. He is now briefing the press that he might be willing to accept an alternative vote system. It is being put about on his behalf that the reason is that it at least retains the constituency link. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, because I believe that he is genuinely sincere in attaching importance to the constituency link. However, he has failed to explain why it is so important to him at Westminster, but is not important to him for another parliamentary system, another democratic expression.
Why did the Home Secretary introduce the Bill? Was he pushed to do so by the left wing of his party? He was not, because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) told us on Second Reading that the whole idea was political suicide. Was the Home Secretary pushed to do so by the Prime Minister, who—whatever else he is—is not the ringleader of the left wing of the


Labour party? Well, as Magnus Magnusson might have said, "I've started, so I'll finish with the same view." As I reminded the House on Second Reading, the current Prime Minister said, in 1994—interestingly, after the Labour party conference had adopted the Plant recommendations, as the Home Secretary has just reminded us—
I have not been persuaded that under PR
one does not
end up with a disproportionate power being wielded by small parties. There is no perfect electoral system. Each has its problems and I simply do not believe that the problems
one gets
with PR are less than those
one gets
with the existing system.''"'—[0fficial Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 818.]
The Bill drives forward a political agenda for the Government and for the Liberal Democrats: it does not drive forward a democratic agenda for the nation. The Bill will become law, imperfect though it is. When there is democratic uproar next year, we will be able to point out that it was the Conservative party that argued the people's case and voted against the Bill.

Mr. Allan: I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill. The Liberal Democrats take as our starting point the fundamental imbalance that was caused by the 1994 European elections—an imbalance in British representation that meant that our constituents were not represented proportionally and also caused an imbalance in the European Parliament itself. We recognise that, in many ways, the Labour Government have been brave to introduce a Bill which appears to damage them in comparison with the current electoral situation.
I am sad that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is so uncharacteristically cynical about our motives. We engage with several million people in this country who wish their Liberal voice to be heard in all the bodies of power. It is our duty to ensure that that voice is heard. We engage with people who are frustrated at having spent their lives voting for parties and never being represented. Many of those people are members and supporters of other parties who end up—legitimately—voting tactically for us because their vote for their first party of choice will never count. Many of those people will also welcome the introduction of the Bill.
We have had fascinating debates throughout the Bill's progress. I never thought that I would hear so many Conservative Members appear so familiar with the terms of proportional representation systems, such as the various divisors. I hope that the experiences that they have had in our debates will lead them to an understanding of why those systems are fairer, and of the way forward. We have all learnt from the experience, and I hope that we will continue on the journey to constitutional reform, which is most welcome to the Liberal Democrats.
The Bill still has features about which we are not 100 per cent. happy, and they have been thoroughly rehearsed in the debates. I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire for his recognition of the fact that we have instituted a democratic process in our party to do our best to cope with the unfairness and possible problems that the closed list system may cause. However, we do not believe that the Bill is a backward step: it is a missed opportunity to move forward. We hope that the Labour party will also introduce measures to try to redress some of the democratic deficit, because the electors will have a problem if all the parties do not behave fairly.
The Bill is an enormous step forward. We hope that it will be part of a process that introduces fair voting. It started in Northern Ireland, with the fair voting systems that it has had for years. It will take us through the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, on to Europe and, eventually, to local government and Westminster. While I recognise that the Home Secretary and others in his party hope that the Bill is so far and no further, we hope that it is the thin end of wedge, and that the days of the first-past-the-post system are numbered in this country.
The Liberal Democrats will vote joyfully and willingly for the Bill and we look forward to going to our party conference, which starts this weekend in Southport, and telling our members that next time they vote in a European election every vote will count towards electing a Member of the European Parliament—the first time that they will have been able to say that about a UK-wide election in the history of this country.

Mr. Sayeed: I am not normally given to violent language in any debate. When I disagree with something, I normally debate more in sorrow than in anger, but the proposals are so partisan and undemocratic that the Labour party should be ashamed of them. We were promised a White Paper, but we have never had it.

Mr. Straw: The House was not promised a White Paper, but a Bill.

Mr. Sayeed: By "we" I meant the country. Before the election, we as a country were promised that there would be a White Paper, but there was not. A White Paper would have allowed the whole country to discuss and consider the measures, but because we have had a Bill that has been bulldozed through the House by a Labour Government with an enormous majority, we have not had that opportunity.
Parts of the Bill are clearly unpopular, not just with Conservative Members, but with Labour Members. I have had a number of discussions with Labour Members who clearly do not like parts of the Bill. I doubt whether they will vote against it; they will probably just abstain if they feel strongly enough. There is no doubt that parts of the Bill are so undemocratic that a large section of the Labour party dislikes them intensely. I hope that they will convey those feelings to their supporters in their constituencies.
I am not sure whether even the Home Secretary likes the Bill very much, as I noticed that he seemed to giggle his way through a great deal of the Second Reading


debate, and I understand that that even happened in Committee. I wonder whether he is comfortable with the Bill. I am sure that the Labour party machine likes the Bill because it gives it enormous power.
I accept that parts of the Bill were contained in the Labour party manifesto; it contained proportional representation—I think that that was a deal cooked up with the Liberal party. I think that it may well be the precursor, as the Liberals want, to PR for the Westminster Parliament, which I profoundly regret.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the democratic process. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Conservative Member of the European Parliament who represents the part of Hampshire in which I live, Mr. Roy Perry, is complaining that his constituents and party members who might want to vote for him on the list system have to come to London to cast their vote. They are not even allowed to have a postal vote. What is democratic about that process?

Mr. Sayeed: I shall explain it clearly to the hon. Gentleman. The problem is that we have been forced into a difficult position because the regions are so large that they are unmanageable—[Interruption.] I was asked a question and I shall answer the hon. Gentleman. Because the regions are so large, people have to travel long distances to listen to every one of the candidates and then make their decision. That is what is called democracy; that is the democracy that we have got to have because we have been forced to have the regions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are many conversations taking place in the Chamber, but I can listen to only one speaker.

Mr. Sayeed: From a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) ask, "What about the highlands and islands?" I agree with the hon. Lady, who has a good point. It is because we have been forced to have enormous regions that people will have to travel long distances if they are to hear the various candidates who want to be selected and elected as Members of the European Parliament.

Mrs. Ewing: Is it not the responsibility of the candidate to go to the people?

Mr. Sayeed: Of course it is the responsibility of the candidates to go to the people, and no doubt they will do so, but in a democratic process there has to be a selection conference. The Labour party is not going to have a selection conference as we understand it; they are going to have a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on the subject of the selection of candidates, which is a matter for political parties. The Bill is not about the selection of candidates; it is about enabling people to stand for the European Parliament. The subject of the selection of candidates is outwith the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Sayeed: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I was trying to explain the dangers of a closed list system.
We know that the enormous regions will break the constituency link, which I regret; I think that many hon. Members regret it. The aspect of the Bill that makes me so angry is that the closed list system was not contained in the Labour party's manifesto. Instead of having government by the people and for the people, we are going to have government by the placemen and for the party machine. That is not democratic, which is why I have the greatest pleasure in opposing this awful Bill.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to have been called to contribute to the Third Reading debate.
I should like to start by saying why I think the present system is satisfactory. Along with distinguished Ministers, I have experienced the present system, and I know that it has provided a direct constituency link. It gives an identifiable elected Member the right to take up cases and push legislation through on behalf of his or her constituents. It provides a clear, identifiable accountable link between the Member of the European Parliament and the elector, and it allows voters to express their choice of candidate.
The Home Secretary was clearly right to say that the European Parliament does not form a Government, but it does play a greater legislative role than the original unelected Assembly that existed prior to the direct elections of 1979. Those powers were vested in the European Parliament through the European Single Act, the Maastricht treaty and the Amsterdam treaty.
The European Parliament plays a similar role to Congress in the United States. I think that the Home Secretary must accept that the size of the Euro-constituency is similar to that of a congressional seat—half a million people. The European Parliament imposes a similar system of checks and balances on the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Perhaps the Government fear that system of checks and balances being played against the Government as President in office of the Council.
I also have great reservations about the system proposed in the form of a closed list. It is profoundly undemocratic and leaves Members of the European Parliament unaccountable to their electors.
Earlier this evening, the Home Secretary said that he would do nothing to discourage people from voting in the European elections. It is the fervent wish of Conservatives to encourage people to vote in the European elections.
Does the Home Secretary accept that several different systems for elections will fall within the two months of May and June next year? There will be one system of proportional representation operating for the European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland; under the present proposals—if they are adopted—a different system will operate for the European elections in England, Wales and Scotland; a different system is envisaged for election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; and the normal first-past-the-post system will apply for local elections in May.
I invite the Home Secretary to stick to the original agreement, which was formally agreed between the Labour party and the Liberal party, to introduce a system of proportional representation that would be valid for all forms of election, but not the European parliamentary


elections before the year 2004. Is it not profoundly wrong of the Government to try to introduce what we Conservatives have described as a bad Bill, which has not been thought out properly due to lack of time?
If the proposed system of proportional representation is so good, why is it not being chosen for all the elections in the two-month period May to June 1999? Will not the system confuse electors—especially first-time electors, and perhaps older electors—so much that they will be put off casting their vote?
The Home Secretary said that he would oppose any weakening of the sovereignty of the House. Are not the Government proposing to weaken it, with the creation of a federal state? They are already committed to introducing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we will have directly elected members of regional assemblies in due course.
The Bill would introduce a list system of party-controlled lists without any democratic link or any accountability of the elected MEP to his or her constituents. I wish it to be noted tonight that Conservatives want to preserve democracy and the direct link between the elected Member and the voter, whereas the Bill makes it clear that Labour wants to create the federalist socialist super-state that Conservative Members have consistently opposed.
It gives me great pleasure to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Gill: Many motives have been ascribed to the Government for introducing this sad and unfortunate Bill, but in tonight's debate no one has mentioned the fact that the terms of the treaty of Maastricht oblige the Government to introduce proportional representation. Once again, Europe is driving the agenda.
I oppose the Bill. My principal objections to it are that, as many colleagues have said, it ends the direct link between Members and their constituencies, and puts parties before people. Moreover, I believe that, if the electoral system is changed, we shall witness in the European Parliament—I fear that, if we get proportional representation in this Parliament, it will occur in this place, too—the emergence of party apparatchiks instead of those people who, over the years, have truly and consistently represented the interests of the people who put us in this place.
The Bill stands democracy on its head. It removes people's right to select their own candidates. It destroys the delicate balance between Parliament, the parties and the people that they represent. It eliminates all the essential checks and balances that have stood democracy in this country in good stead for so long. It is a bad Bill, with little or no democratic justification. There is no disguising the greater party patronage and the greater central control that will result from the Bill, and there is no denying the scope it creates for dishonest politics and corrupt politicians.
Finally, I very much regret the fact that an opportunity has been missed to enfranchise 18,000 people living in Gibraltar. That is very sad. The people of Gibraltar cannot understand it, and nor can I. The Government continually tell the House that they are altering our constitution to make it more democratic, and to make it more accountable

to the people. The Bill provided the Government with an opportunity to put their words into action. They have missed it, and that will not be easily forgotten in Gibraltar.

Mr. Syms: I shall be brief, because I know that hon. Members wish to get away after a long week.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that he hoped that we had learnt something about proportional representation. The more we learn, the less we like it. I am sure that, as the British electorate appreciate what they will have to deal with at the next European election—

Mr. Hancock: They will come to love it.

Mr. Syms: As a defender of the first-past-the-post system, I believe that the experience of the new system will be a great ally to us, because, when the electorate see how the new system works, they will start to appreciate the representative democracy that they have had for so many years.
We have heard much about proportionality. There are advantages in a proportional system, but some very proportional systems in use in Europe produce answers that are not always the ones that sensible, moderate politicians want.
The Front National in France benefited greatly from its national list, which gave it a boost domestically. We have heard a great deal about Belgian politics. Anyone who visits Antwerp sees the influence of Vlaams Blok, which often wins a fifth of the vote and has an influence. It is somewhat nasty to immigrants and has a political pedigree that none of us would want to see reflected in the British political system. We should be wary. Proportional systems can throw up people with whom hon. Members would not especially like to share a platform.
I finish by remarking on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). We have seen part of the pudding in the Bill. We have not seen the registration of political parties, which will be key to the way in which the Bill works. At the start of this process, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked several very sensible questions about lists. What happens under a list system when an MEP switches party? What happens when there is a list that is to continue for five years, until the next election, and a candidate switches party and inherits a seat?
All those key issues will be debated on the Floor of the House. Conservative Members will make constructive comments, but also stand up for what we believe to be right, in terms of representative democracy and the rights of individual electors.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 87.

Division No. 204]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Baker, Norman


Ainger, Nick
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Banks, Tony


Allan, Richard
Beard, Nigel


Atkins, Charlotte
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Austin, John
Begg, Miss Anne






Bermingham, Gerald
Iddon, Dr Brian


Berry, Roger
Ingram, Adam


Betts, Clive
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Boateng, Paul
Jenkins, Brian


Breed, Colin
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Burstow, Paul
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Butler, Mrs Christine
Keeble, Ms Sally


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Caplin, Ivor
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Casale, Roger
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cawsey, Ian
Khabra, Piara S


Chidgey, David
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Church, Ms Judith
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Clapham, Michael
Laxton, Bob


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Levitt, Tom


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Linton, Martin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Lock, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
McCabe, Steve


Coaker, Vernon
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Coffey, Ms Ann
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cohen, Harry
McIsaac, Shona


Coleman, Iain
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Colman, Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
MacShane, Denis


Corston, Ms Jean
Mactaggart, Fiona


Cotter, Brian
McWalter, Tony


Cranston, Ross
McWilliam, John


Cummings, John
Mallaber, Judy


Darvill, Keith
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Merron, Gillian


Dawson, Hilton
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Dowd, Jim
Milburn, Alan


Drew, David
Miller, Andrew


Drown, Ms Julia
Moffatt, Laura


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Moore, Michael


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Flint, Caroline
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mountford, Kali


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mudie, George


Fyfe, Maria
Norris, Dan


Gapes, Mike
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Gardiner, Barry
Olner, Bill


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Öpik, Lembit


Gerrard, Neil
Palmer, Dr Nick


Gibson, Dr Ian
Pearson, Ian


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Pickthall, Colin


Godsiff, Roger
Pike, Peter L


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Plaskitt, James


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Pollard, Kerry


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pond, Chris


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pound, Stephen


Hancock, Mike
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Primarolo, Dawn


Hepburn, Stephen
Purchase, Ken


Heppell, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Quinn, Lawrie


Hoey, Kate
Rammell, Bill


Home Robertson, John
Rapson, Syd


Hope, Phil
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Rendel, David


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruane, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Hutton, John






Sanders, Adrian
Tipping, Paddy


Savidge, Malcolm
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Southworth, Ms Helen
Walley, Ms Joan


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Ms Bridget Prentice and



Janet Anderson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
MacKay, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)
Madel, Sir David


Boswell, Tim
Maginnis, Ken


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Malins, Humfrey


Brady, Graham
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Brazier, Julian
Moss, Malcolm


Burns, Simon
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William
Norman, Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paterson, Owen


Colvin, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Day, Stephen
Randall, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fallon, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Flight, Howard
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Viggers, Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jenkin, Bernard
Wells, Bowen


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Leigh, Edward
Woodward, Shaun


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Luff, Peter



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. James Cran and



Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today during business questions, I requested a debate on the human rights record of my predecessor, Mr. Terry Dicks, who had visited Iraq and subsequently supported the hanging of Fazal Barzoft, a journalist with The Observer. He also cast aspersions on the veracity of the gassing of Kurds in the village of Halaji.
While I was out of the Chamber, meeting constituents involved in a dispute at a local factory, I believe that a Conservative Member returned to the matter, on the basis that I was repeating a libel which I settled out of court.
I raised the matter, not to repeat any libel but on the basis of information contained on the record in Hansard of the previous Member for Hayes and Harlington. He said that the Conservative Government, without any evidence being available at all, were quick to condemn the Iraqi Government for "allegedly" gassing the Kurds living in the north of Iraq. That comment followed an Amnesty International report confirming the gassing.
In a newspaper article, which has been supplied by the Library, he went on to support the hanging of Fazal Barzoft—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot let him continue, because that is not a point of order. These are personal matters and personal views. They are not matters for me.

Mr. McDonnell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it another point of order?

Mr. McDonnell: I seek to put the record straight on the accuracy of the statement that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Points of order should not be used to put the record straight.

Mr. McDonnell: I am much obliged.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sierra Leone

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for Madam Speaker's choice of tonight's subject on the Adjournment, which is the situation in Sierra Leone. I first sought a debate on the subject some weeks ago. It is of great encouragement to me that, since I first started seeking this opportunity, things have improved considerably in Sierra Leone. Although it is taking events in somewhat the wrong order, we meet tonight in the context of the liberation of Sierra Leone from its military junta and at the beginning of what I hope—like, I am sure, all colleagues in the House—will be a hugely positive and constructive new chapter, with a democratic Government installed, supported and made secure.
My first reflection is that, instead of having the debate that I feared we would have—one critical of a military regime and setting out the horrors that were inflicted a couple of weeks ago, in one of the poorest countries in the world—there is now a substantial shaft of light.
Secondly, I have used the opportunity of tonight's debate to gather together some people who know much more about events in Sierra Leone than I do. It is clear that the general view is that the British Government—especially the new Government—have signalled their intention to be a strong and renewed supporter of the Commonwealth. It is clear also that they have wanted to be helpful and supportive—supportive of the President in exile, supportive of our mission in exile with him and intensely keen to try to bring about a satisfactory resolution.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and his colleagues have the respect of the Sierra Leonean community, both there and here. I therefore hope, that we can all contribute constructively and positively to the debate, as I know the Minister personally and his colleagues have sought to do. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister has plans—he will probably tell us more formally—to go to Sierra Leone in the near future. That visit will be greatly welcomed.
My third introductory comment is that I come to the debate entirely ill equipped, in a way, to be introducing it. 1 love Africa greatly and I have been there relatively often, but I have never been to Sierra Leone. My interest does not spring from my experience of the country in either its peacetime or its wartime. It comes instead from friendships with and the interests of my constituents, who form part of the significant Sierra Leonean community in this country.
I do not know the accurate figures, but I have read that there are about 180,000 Sierra Leoneans here. Parliamentary colleagues from Hull, north London, including the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and others, like me, represent significant numbers of people who have come from Sierra Leone. Many of them have been in this country for a long time in settled communities. Others have been here for a short time; those people have come because they could not stay at home.
One of the issues on which I shall touch is that, together with the Minister of State and his Department, there is a Home Office interest in the debate. Last year, as a result of the coup and the situation in Sierra Leone, the Home Office declared that Sierra Leone was a country whose nationals in this country would not in any circumstances be sent back, because it would be unsafe for them to return. I welcomed that decision. My constituents who are from Sierra Leone also welcomed it greatly.
Within days of the beginning of the restoration of democratic government, questions arose concerning when, how and in what way it would be appropriate to change that process. Clearly that is of great concern to Sierra Leoneans in This country.
Before I knew that Madam Speaker had selected this subject for debate, one of the first unsolicited letters that I received at the beginning of the new year was from an organisation that I had not heard of before. It may have written to other colleagues—certainly to Ministers. The letter was from a small group of people based in this country who call themselves the Movement for Peace in Sierra Leone. I shall read the beginning of the letter, as it sets the scene for the situation in Sierra Leone at the turn of the year:
I am writing to you about the lack of public awareness of the deteriorating events in Sierra Leone and the distressing plight of its refugees as a result of a prolonged seven year civil war culminating in the recent military coup of 25 May 1997.
Words are extremely difficult to find to describe the carnage which has resulted from this military coup. Sierra Leone now lies in ruins and is ungovernable. With a population of 4.5 million of which 150,000 or more have been killed in the civil war: the exodus of Sierra Leoneans to the relative safety of neighbouring countries has reached epic proportions, estimated at around 750,000. This has created a humanitarian crisis along the west coast of Africa and beyond and the litany of suffering, destitution and degradation encountered by Sierra Leonean refugees would bring tears to your eyes…we were impelled to do something on their behalf.
The organisation was impelled to write to colleagues and to me.
That message at the beginning of the year made me think that I should do something. I know that such a thought has always been in the mind of Government, and in the minds of colleagues, many of whom have asked questions in the House and in the other place.
Those who do not represent Sierra Leone or who have not worked or lived there, or who have not been involved directly with the agencies or previous missions to Sierra Leone, may wonder whether this is a big issue on the world stage, because we have not heard about it in the same way as we have heard of Rwanda and Burundi—we have not had pictures on our news in the same way—but occasionally the tragedies of the lack of a democracy in such countries impact here.
Colleagues and others who later read or hear our debates may remember a true-life story which was reported in this country: that of a little girl from Makeni, north of Freetown, who came to this country from a children's home, where she could not get the treatment she needed after a bullet was shot into her head, between her eye and her brain. She came here, to Norwich hospital, two years ago, for her life to be saved. Tenneh Cole, "the girl with the bullet in her head", encapsulated for a moment the tragedies that occur when the democratic

structure of countries such as Sierra Leone is completely overturned. Only weeks ago, it was reported that everybody from the home from which that little girl came had gone missing. It had been looted and it was not known whether any of the children were alive or dead. Mercifully, later reports confirmed that the children had escaped into the bush.
We are talking about a country that has been ripped apart and ravaged, where the most indescribable things have happened to the most vulnerable in the most vulnerable of places. The least we can do is reflect on that and get the maximum agreement and support from the Government to bring help, succour and consolation.
I shall not spend a long time tracing the history of what has happened; nor will I spend long getting involved in the debate—although it has merit—about how the forces of liberation came to the rescue in recent days. I shall do that summarily.
After the military coup, attempts were made by the EU, within the United Nations and by Governments in west Africa, to bring about, by means of sanctions, diplomacy and so on, a peaceful resolution and an end to the military regime. That did not succeed; therefore, ECOMOG—the military observer group of the Economic Community of West African States—intervened.
I think that it is widely accepted that, technically, ECOMOG intervened outside the remit of the United Nations. That is not something that we would usually sanction, and I am not seeking to do so now. All I can say to the Minister, as I am sure he has been told, is that the first response in Sierra Leone was that the Nigerian-led troops were welcome. They have allowed the President to return. Whatever we may think about the regime in Nigeria, and whatever we may wish for that country, it would be wrong to be distracted tonight by those issues when, thank God, things have moved on and that intervention has taken place.
The implications of the way in which the President has been allowed to return, and the deputy commissioner and now our high commissioner have gone back, are matters for us. There are two sorts of issue which I hope will concern the House. I shall illustrate those, ask a few questions and leave the House with a few reflections which have been picked up from Sierra Leonean citizens who have lived and worked there and which they have been good enough to share with me.
There are two principal areas in which we can assist, and I speak to the Minister as he is wearing both his British Government hat and his European Union presidency hat, which he has for six months. First, we need to consolidate, bolster and secure democracy, civil liberty and the rule of law in Sierra Leone. Since independence, it has had two military regimes and it does not want any more. It wants to continue in a democratic tradition. Therefore, we must go about building that democracy.
It emerged clearly from a meeting that we had not many minutes ago that local government is one of the respects in which Britain may be able to help. I have a practical example which relates well to other experiences that I have had in other African countries.
If, for example, one is seeking to distribute aid or organise other matters locally, it is far more likely that an elected local government structure, rather than appointed or self-appointed local organisations, will have the


confidence of the people. If we are seeking to build a regime of security, supporting the Government and people of Sierra Leone, there are various ways in which to proceed.
We need to give support to the United Nations to regularise the position of any external forces which may remain in the country. It is important that what has happened is put right, made legitimate and then made secure within a United Nations context.
It is clear that, if people feel insecure, there cannot be a democratic regime and the fair chance of a beginning of prosperity. Most important, the country's borders and, in particular, its border with Liberia, must be secure. The frontiers must be known to be secure and there must be protection against the risks that many believe triggered the initial civil war—the spilling over into Sierra Leone of issues that originated in Liberia. External and internal security go together. If one is not secure, both may fail.
We must ensure that human, political and civil rights, as well as economic and social rights, are looked after. In a study on wealth carried out about 10 years ago, Sierra Leone came 186th out of 186 or 187 in the world league table. One destabilising factor, which is more tragic when it occurs in a poor country, is the great injustice that remains between the affluent and the poor. Economic injustice results in economic and social imbalance, which detracts from a stable political, civil and social community.
As we think about how we can proceed in terms of securing a political and democratic regime, I want to make a specific suggestion. Given that the Commonwealth secretariat is based in this country, as soon as is practicable in Sierra Leone an organisation such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy could seek to facilitate a constitutional and civic discussion so that the ideas of people of experience who remain in Sierra Leone or have been exiled can be taken into account and used in the rebuilding process. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has done good work in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa, so perhaps it, as well as other organisations, could be used.
Secondly, practical assistance is desperately needed to build up a country that is on its knees. I refer to humanitarian aid in the first place, but a reconstruction programme is also needed. Earlier today, I was listening to friends and colleagues in a Committee Room speak of their experiences. If I were a Sierra Leonean, I would want the world to help with a sort of Marshall plan for my country. That is the level of investment and commitment that is needed. A country of 4.5 million people is not an insignificant one to rebuild.
Sierra Leone has one or two crucial industries. If it is to have a diamond industry that produces wealth for all, not just for the few, it must be incorporated into a reconstruction programme. In many areas, agriculture has been devastated and the infrastructure is non-existent. Although it is a small country, there have been repeated pleas for a decent rail system. Pleas are heard in all countries, but they are all the more crucial in a country that has suffered both civil war and then a repressive and cruel regime. Hardware is needed to allow agriculture to take off quickly. The land for growing rice exists, but without tractors and tools, the rice cannot be grown, so people are not as self-sufficient as they would like to be.
I hope that the Government will draw up a list of the practical humanitarian measures that they can take and co-ordinate a response. It would be helpful if the Minister will not just say that the United Kingdom Government will continue to respond and be keen to help, but mobilise our colleagues in the European Union and the Commonwealth to respond appropriately, too. If this Parliament has noticed how unsatisfactory and oppressive the regimes in Sierra Leone and Nigeria have been, we must respond with speedy action when the chance comes for those regimes to end.
Measures are needed that go beyond the immediate and short terms. In response to what our Sierra Leonean partners tell us, we could help to co-ordinate training, support and back-up for their education and teaching, judicial and local government systems. "Training" is one of the words I hear most when people are asked what is needed in Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leonean voluntary sector organisations, some based in this country and some based in Sierra Leone, already have the appropriate people who are willing and able to work, and they should be supported. People from Sierra Leone who are based in Britain need help to enable them to go back and contribute to the rebuilding of their country, because they face complicated problems. The Government must consider also how they can respond sensitively and appropriately to the problems of those who are so unsettled, upset, physically hurt and bereaved that they are not ready or able to go back home in the near future.
All I can do is hint at the enormity of the task facing us. Britain was the colonial power, and since 1961 has been regarded as the principal non-African friend of Sierra Leone. If ever there was a time for us to do our post-colonial duty, it is now; if ever there was a time for the Government to respond generously and win the sympathy and support of all hon. Members, it is now.
On behalf of a community that has suffered far more than any community has ever deserved to suffer, I say to the Minister that there is an opportunity to rebuild. The President and the Government want to get on with the job, and the people of Sierra Leone are looking to us to respond. I hope that tonight's debate shows that we are ready to listen, and to respond most generously.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his good fortune in securing the debate.
The city that I represent is twinned with Freetown in Sierra Leone, and that is particularly important to us. Twinnings between cities are often occasions for junkets, with a little education and a few visits thrown in, but, because of the city's connections with William Wilberforce and his connections with Sierra Leone and the abolition of slavery, we deliberately chose to twin with Freetown to draw our citizens' attention to responsibilities outwith Europe.
Our relationship with Freetown has been tenuous, not because of any lack of good will among the people of Freetown or the citizens of Hull, but because of the unhappiness that has hit Sierra Leone and the reaction of previous British Governments to the issues of trade, aid and assistance. We welcome the return of democracy to Sierra Leone and hope to see the country prosper.
I want to put two points to my hon. Friend the Minister, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may go into further detail. First, I shall take up the point about training in local government made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Representatives from Freetown's town clerk's department have frequently worked in our town clerk's department. In turn, we have sent administrators to Freetown. Much could be achieved by Her Majesty's Government if they examined the small and narrow, but fundamental, issue of training. Helping people works two ways: we learnt a great deal from the Sierra Leoneans who worked with us in Hull. That is something that can be built on at relatively little cost. It provides important infrastructure for a decent and civilised life. We should look at that.
Secondly, we should make more use of our voluntary organisations in this country and the voluntary organisations in Sierra Leone which have contacts and relationships with one another. It might be through CAFOD—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development—War on Want or some other organisation.
That country is facing terrible devastation as it recovers from the ravages of the terrible civil war. At grass roots level, help can be provided with small projects, small sums of money and limited but important ambitions to rebuild the local economy, and to help people regain the ability to sustain themselves and provide something for a cash crop to maintain the economy. Despite the civil war, the invasion and the restoration of democracy, the voluntary organisations have maintained specific and deliberate connections. Throughout that time, money has been going to Sierra Leone to buy things that are desperately needed. Above all, those voluntary organisations have the confidence of local people. In many cases, it is local people who are administering the work and assistance.
I would like to think that the Foreign Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will look at ways in which to help. Great sums of money and great schemes will not do anything immediately, but we should concentrate our attention on myriad small schemes, deliberately targeted on the agencies and the people who know how to achieve the regeneration of the countryside.

Mr. Alan Johnson: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for initiating the debate and for allowing us to participate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, Hull has a long association with Sierra Leone and we are twinned with Freetown. Our constituents have watched with concern the events of the past decade. According to the United Nations, 30,000 people have been killed in Sierra Leone since 1991, and 350,000 people have been made refugees.
There was optimism in February 1996 when the elections produced a mandate for the Sierra Leone People's Party and for the presidency of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah. That turned quickly to despair. The Minister will

recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and I wrote to him on 10 December last year drawing his attention to an Amnesty International report on the abuse of civil rights and the collapse of the rule of law following the military coup which took place in May last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, hopefully the reign of terror is over, but the scorched earth policy of the fleeing terrorists is causing great suffering to people who have already suffered so much.
I know that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that the fledgling democracy survives. I should like to quote from a report sent to us in Hull by a very brave man, Father Peter Konteh, who is based at the Sacred Heart cathedral in Freetown. He wrote to us recently via the local press saying:
How do people feel about the future? People are generally optimistic; Sierra Leone seems to have a lot of confidence in President Tejan Kabbah. This is partly due to the fact that before the May 25th obstruction, there were evident signs that the economy of the country was on the mend. People believe that with his reinstatement things may continue for the better. Others feel that life will continue to be difficult for a while, because the AFRC have done so much damage to the economy and the infrastructural basis of this nation, but none the less they believe that Tejan Kabbah is well capable to rebuild this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and I are here because we believe that Ahmed Tejan Kabbah cannot do it alone and that the people of Sierra Leone need assistance. In Hull, we are doing our best to provide what help we can to our friends in Sierra Leone because we recognise the suffering that its people have endured and the immense courage of those who have stayed to struggle for the restoration of democracy in that beautiful country.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the Speaker on choosing this subject for today's debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on the way in which he has introduced it, and my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on the excellent work by Kingston upon Hull council as part of a real twinning arrangement.
Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, a considerable number of people from Sierra Leone live in my constituency and in nearby areas of north London. The reality for them of a conflict that has gone on for a long time is the horror and fear of trying to find out what has happened to their families: whether they have been killed, where they have been forced into exile, and which place has granted them refuge or which has not.
To try to put it into context, the civil war in Sierra Leone has gone on almost as long as this country's population endured the second world war. That is the reality of life for Sierra Leone's people. Thirty per cent. of the population have been displaced and well over 15,000—possibly as many as 50,000 people—have been killed during the war. The loss is tremendous and horrific, and it tends to be of the most able sections of the population during fighting. The problems of economic redevelopment and reconstruction of the whole country are further hampered by the loss of so many able, fit and skilled people. As a result, the damage is even greater.
The number of people who have sought refuge in this country has been considerable. Although the Home Office has not removed anyone to Sierra Leone and, as far as I


know, has no plans to do so, I would be pleased to hear from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), that he will pass on to Home Office Ministers concerns that many of us have that, although—I hope—the war is behind us and a period of peace and stability is ahead, it has not all happened yet. We hope that there will be no removals back to Sierra Leone in the foreseeable future, and that we shall instead have some sympathy for the people concerned.
I have in front of me a sobering booklet called "The armed conflict in the world today: a country by country review". I do not propose to read it all because it would take a long time. The booklet is, in part, sponsored by the all-party group on human rights, of which I am one of the vice-chairs. In the section on Sierra Leone, it outlines the problems, conflicts and losses, and the hope that, following the accords that were signed after hostilities ended—which we understand is the case—some Government of national unity will be installed. I hope that that Government are successful and able to achieve the national unity that is required for reconstruction to take place.
Although I recognise everything that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said on that point, the question of the UN's role in this conflict and, indeed, in others needs to be examined closely. The UN takes a high-profile role in certain places. At times, it almost looks as though CNN is following the UN, or the UN is following CNN; I am not sure which way round it is. This conflict never quite reached the proportions of Kate Adie being parachuted in to report it to us. As a result of the almost complete media ignorance of the events there, the Nigerian army was acting—or believed it was acting—on behalf of the UN in both Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Do not get me wrong. I am glad that the conflict is over in Sierra Leone, but I do not believe that it is right to allow armies from countries that, in no sense, can be described as democratic or respecting human rights in their societies, to act, in effect, under a UN mandate. I would rather that the UN had a much more hands-on involvement in tackling the problems of west Africa. A conflict, be it in Bosnia, Iran, Iraq or West Africa, results in thousands of deaths. If the UN is to mean anything, it has to be properly involved. I hope that the House will return to the issue of what the UN does.
I conclude on a point that I find quite horrifying. It is possible to find out very quickly what is happening all around the world. Worldwide web sites and other technology mean that we can get day-by-day accounts of the starvation and destruction that is taking place. All that technology makes it possible for us to sit at home in our front rooms, tap into a computer and find out exactly what is going on, but tragically, we cannot get food, aid or help there in time; we can only get the information back.
I hope that the Government recognise that the massive refugee surges from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria will have to be dealt with and that unless food aid is got there quickly and agricultural aid and infrastructural help shortly afterwards, the conditions that led to the war in the first place and resulted in the coup and all the corruption that went with it will be repeated. We have to get help there very quickly. I hope that the Government and the EU will play their part in that, but above all, I

hope that the United Nations will show real determination to get involved in that part of the world, and support movements that bring about long-term peace.
There are vast natural resources all along the West African coast. It was plundered by the Europeans as part of the slave trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is now being plundered again by international mining companies that are not necessarily concerned about democracy, the rule of law and human rights; all they want is a stable environment from which they can extract enormous wealth.
I wish the new Government of Sierra Leone well as there are enormous problems ahead of them. We can help them overcome some of those problems by sending aid from the west to develop a sustainable and democratic society. I fear that, if we fail to do that, the same disasters will recur in 10 years' time. I do not want that to happen—nobody does—but there is responsibility on western countries that have the knowledge, power and money to do something about it and quickly.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr.Tony Lloyd): I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on introducing tonight's important debate. I am delighted that he chose to debate Sierra Leone. Britain and the rest of the world have to take account of the tragedy that took place there, and its changed circumstances.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the role that the British Government have consistently tried to play since the coup in Sierra Leone last year. I am acutely aware of the fact that Britain's ties with Sierra Leone go back over a considerable period. I also have many West Africans, particularly from Sierra Leone, living in my constituency, including a former lord mayor of Manchester, Councillor Yomi Mambu, with whom I have been in constant touch, along with many other constituents from Sierra Leone who were frightened beyond reason by the uncertainty of the plight of their families and friends while the junta was in control of the country.
Last October, I was privileged to address a seminar in London with President Tejan Kabbah, who was still in exile, entitled "Restoring Sierra Leone to Democracy". I expressed our clear wish to see the people of Sierra Leone free to determine their own Government and future. The return of President Kabbah to Freetown on 10 March—just two days ago—is a vital step in that direction, and we warmly welcome his return.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talked about tragedy turning into joy, referring to the case of Tenneh Cole, and saying that she had gone into the bush. She is now back, and, although traumatised, she is at least safe, and hopefully secure.
It is equally a matter of fact that the tragedy that unfolded on the streets of Freetown and throughout Sierra Leone turned to joy a few days ago when President Kabbah returned to Freetown. I am told that about 500,000 people were on the streets of Freetown to welcome him on his triumphal journey to the stadium, where 50,000 people had waited from the early morning and through the heat of the day until his arrival to hear his speech. Quite rightly, a hero's welcome was bestowed on him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the position of the Home Office. The best I can do is to pass on the remarks that hon. Members have made tonight to Home Office Ministers. However, I put on record my belief that the reign of tenor is now over. In his address on his arrival in Freetown, President Kabbah spoke of the need for reconciliation and to establish a broad-based Government. Despite his own suffering—his house was destroyed by the junta in an act of petty-minded nastiness—he said, speaking of the tragedy:
our image as a civilised nation will be greatly enhanced if we are seen to be promoting reconciliation.
It is that tone of reconciliation that is so important.
President Kabbah continued:
Also of great concern to me is the spate of revenge killing and other forms of violence that followed our liberation. I am aware that people were hurt and are still being hurt in other parts of the country by the atrocities of the RUF rebels and the remnants of the junta. However this negative era in Sierra Leone's history can be used as a redefining moment for our country as we move towards the millennium.
With that sort of spirit, which demands of himself and works with his people for reconciliation, Sierra Leone can look forward to a different era.
The priority now is for the whole of the international community to work with President Kabbah, the Economic Community of West African States and the people of Sierra Leone to underline the fact that a long-term peaceful future can be assured only through that reconciliatory and inclusive approach. That approach formed the basis of the Abidjan peace accords and the Conakry agreement, and it remains as valid today as when they were drawn up.
In his speech, President Kabbah was kind enough to pay tribute to the role the British Government played in bringing about his return. He said:
The British Prime Minister and his Government also deserve our special thanks for their support and assistance in every respect, and for the generous hospitality accorded to me and my delegation during the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Heads of Government.
We appreciate those words.
Let me take this opportunity to set out our position and record in this respect. We have been committed to working for the restoration of President Kabbah's Government because we regarded them as the only legitimate Government available to the people of Sierra Leone. We were instrumental in drawing up the UN Security Council resolution 1132, which imposed sanctions on the military junta. Through the Department for International Development, we provided support for the Government exiled in Conakry, to enable them to draw up a programme for the reconstruction of their country following their return to office. That 90-day programme includes specific reference to local government, and President Kabbah has made it clear that he still intends to implement it.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister personally invited President Kabbah to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—uniquely, given that he was not actually in situ as the working Head of Government. We recognised that the situation in Sierra Leone was unique,

so inviting President Kabbah was the right act, and it sent a strong signal. In January, the Foreign Secretary appointed Mr. John Flynn—a former ambassador—to act as his special representative on Sierra Leone to galvanise international support for the restoration of democracy there.
Since February, the position has changed following the intervention of the ECOMOG forces. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that, while we welcome the fact that the rule of the military junta had been brought to an end, we were unable wholeheartedly to endorse the ECOMOG action. We believe that any use of force should be based in international law. It is important to place on record our recognition of the sacrifice made by the ECOMOG forces, which saw young lives sacrificed in the cause of restoring democracy. Co-operation is needed by all those who have the interests of Sierra Leone at heart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North talked about the need for a process of reconstruction to prevent a return to the situation which allowed the coup to take place, and he is right. In that vein, our immediate priority had to be to assist in providing humanitarian relief to the people of Freetown and other cities in Sierra Leone that had seen fighting.
To help with that immediate assistance, HMS Cornwall arrived in Freetown on 1 March, and will remain until 20 March. HMS Cornwall has played an invaluable role, delivering food and medical supplies to cities in Sierra Leone which were unreachable by other means. Her crew are providing emergency assistance to hospitals, schools and other institutions and people in Freetown. Cornwall's efforts are being co-ordinated through the UN humanitarian office with the efforts of the Sierra Leone Government, aid agencies and non-governmental organisations on the ground.
In addition to the role played by HMS Cornwall, we have provided a donation of £2 million to the UN trust fund for Sierra Leone; I shall return to the trust fund later. The DFID has funded a humanitarian adviser, who is now in Freetown working with the Government, UN agencies and NGOs to assess how best to help those who need it. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North about the need to look at the small schemes, which are so important.
The DFID has already sent supplies worth £1 million, together with logistical and technical support, to the task force established in Freetown to restore civilian government to Sierra Leone. DFID has provided another £1 million in addition to the £1 million given in November last year to enable the International Committee of the Red Cross to continue its humanitarian work and protection and human rights activities. That is where the initial focus has been. Clearly, all hon. Members who have spoken referred to the need for long-term reconstruction. We want normal economic activity to return, and there is a role for the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) said.
In that context, President Kabbah said:
we shall adopt means to safeguard our fishing industry and stop the smuggling of our diamonds.
He referred to corruption, which was part of the tragedy which befell the nation. We very much welcome his statement:
But you should each be a vigilante for good government and the elimination of corruption in our society.


That is part of the rebuilding process.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There are two other pieces of the longer-term economic picture that the Minister might look at. He should try to make sure that the IMF and world financial agencies do not go in heavily—as they sometimes have done in African countries recently—to try to get the regime balanced more quickly than is practically possible. Secondly, if ever there were a case for debt wipe-out in the context of Jubilee 2000 and the role we can play, Sierra Leone must be it. Perhaps the Minister will reflect, now or later, on whether one of the signal things that we could do is to wipe out the international debt of that country, and to negotiate for that internationally.

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give an easy answer to that, except to point out that the World bank has recently changed considerably—the culture has changed enormously—and it is now seen to be playing a much more constructive role. Moreover, the British Government are playing a key role in trying to ensure debt write-off throughout the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that he will allow me to reflect on that, rather than give a glib answer now.
On the internationalisation of the process, hon. Members have referred to the role of the United Nations. We have made it clear that we believe that the United Nations—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mudie.]

Mr. Lloyd: That is the first time that I have ever had to give way to the occupant of the Chair for the 10 o'clock motion, but this has been a week of many firsts for me, including having to respond to two Adjournment debates.
As I was saying, we believe that the United Nations has a vital role to play in underpinning the return to democracy in Sierra Leone. On 13 March, which is tomorrow, the Secretary-General will report on UN deployment. I cannot anticipate what the report will say, but we believe that future peacekeeping by ECOMOG forces—this relates to points that have been made—should be brought under UN auspices through a new Security Council resolution, which will authorise the deployment of UN military liaison officers to assist ECOMOG in the disarmament and demobilisation of all armed groups, including local militia. Inevitably, the UN will have a key role in helping to develop the country.

Mr. Corbyn: I was making a wider point about ECOMOG as a whole. Will my hon. Friend's concerns apply also to the operation of ECOMOG forces in Liberia, and perhaps in any other country in the region? Clearly, the report of the Secretary-General must cover the whole region—one cannot deal with Sierra Leone in isolation.

Mr. Lloyd: I was going to put my hon. Friend's point into the context of the overall security situation. Inevitably, we have to take a wider view of the security of Sierra Leone in the region. We need to debate what that means specifically, but we believe that the legal

authority of the UN is needed both to ensure an adequate mandate for all those involved and to allow for long-term security internally and in the region as a whole.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, Britain is actively involved in the promotion of the UN trust fund, which we strongly support. I believe that the fund is the Marshall plan for Sierra Leone that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey requested. We have started the fund with a contribution of £2 million, and we intend to use every device available to us to encourage the international community to be generous. The fund is designed to support the rehabilitation and development programme in the longer term. We shall play a full and active role in achieving those objectives.
I also believe that the Commonwealth has a key role to play relating to the democracy agenda. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was kind enough to mention the Government's support for the Commonwealth. We believe that the Commonwealth is reinventing itself, and that it can play a vital role in upholding standards of respect for human rights and of support for democracy. We believe that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth as an institution, have an important role to play in the context of Sierra Leone.
I had the privilege of representing the British Government when Sierra Leone was discussed at the Commonwealth ministerial action group in London on 2 and 3 March. In the concluding statement, we welcomed the fact that the rule of the junta had been brought to an end. We commended the role played by ECOWAS and, at the time, we looked forward to President Kabbah's return and called for humanitarian assistance for the people of Sierra Leone.
We also agreed to send a ministerial-level mission to Sierra Leone as soon as possible to explore ways in which the Commonwealth could assist in the reconstruction of the country. Constitutional arguments were advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and by my hon. Friends who contributed to the debate, about the need to rebuild a civil society. The Commonwealth can make a genuine contribution, because we have experience of institutional systems that overlap with those that Sierra Leone had in the past and will enjoy in the future. I am pleased to confirm that the mission plans to visit Sierra Leone on 30 and 31 March, and I look forward to being a member of the mission and examining the situation in the country.
I wish to defend the Government and one of Britain's representatives against an ill-informed and scurrilous article that appeared in The Observer on Sunday. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that no one has referred to it. It talked about Britain's talks with hired killers, and about the Foreign Office admitting our ambassador's link to notorious mercenaries plotting against the Sierra Leone Government. Ironically, that was wrong, because the Sierra Leone Government referred to was the illegal junta. That is a bizarre situation for The Observer, but perhaps accuracy was not its main intention.
The suggestion that Britain was conspiring with hired killers is wrong, and I wish to make that clear on behalf of the Government. As a result of the article, the high commissioner, Mr. Peter Penfold, has confirmed that on no occasion did he attend any meetings at which


Sandline—the company mentioned—and President Kabbah were present together. I reject the insinuations in the article except in one regard—the high commissioner and President Kabbah became close to each other when they were in exile together in Conakry.
We do not regard the fact that the high commissioner did his job and offered tangible and practical support to President Kabbah as something for which he should be criticised. The opposite is true, because we believe that he played an important role, and President Kabbah agrees. We reject the nonsense in that article, and it is a pity that the journalist did not take the trouble to talk to me directly.
Sierra Leone now has a new opportunity and a new future. If that future is an improvement on the past, we can only rejoice. If anyone is in any doubt about the nature of the junta, its activities in the past weeks have revealed the full horror of its rule. The stories that have come out since the junta took over have been horrendous. The stories of brutality meted out to innocent people have been daily fare.
As the junta retreated, it systematically looted villages, and mutilated and murdered innocent civilians. It left a legacy of misery behind it that will traumatise Sierra Leone for years to come. It has been reported that 500 people in the town of Bo, one of the last strongholds of the junta, were slaughtered. We do not know when that happened, and we can only record the outrage and note that it is justification for the condemnation of the junta and rejoicing that it has now gone. It is time to draw a line under that sad chapter in the history of Sierra Leone, and to work together to support the efforts of the new Government and the people to rebuild their country.
If I have missed any of the points that have been raised by hon. Members, I apologise, and I shall reflect on them and return to them.
I conclude by setting out what we see as the priorities for Sierra Leone. The first and most immediate is the provision of humanitarian assistance to the population and to make a start on long-term economic reform and development. It is for President Kabbah to re-establish immediately an autonomous, democratic Sierra Leone Government based in Freetown. It is for future peacekeeping by ECOMOG forces to be brought under the United Nation's auspices through a new Security Council resolution authorising the deployment of UN military liaison officers to assist ECOMOG in the disarmament and demobilisation of all armed groups in the country, including the local militia.
It is for the international community to begin to work with President Kabbah, with ECOWAS and the people of Sierra Leone to reinforce the view that a long-term peaceful future can be assured only through the process of reconciliation, as envisaged in the Abidjan peace accords and the Conakry agreement. The United Nations will play a crucial role, but I believe that President Kabbah will also do so. The words that he has spoken in Freetown over the past few days are an important signal of his intent, and of the possibilities for the people of Sierra Leone.
President Kabbah and the people of Sierra Leone face a daunting task in the rebuilding of their shattered country. It is one that will require the support of the international

community. The pledge that Britain makes, has made in the past and will make in future is that we stand ready to play our full part to ensure that Sierra Leone achieves that aim and that dream.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I should like to say how much I endorse the Government's approach to the return of democracy to Sierra Leone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on introducing the debate. What we have been discussing is vital, not just to Sierra Leone, but to the whole of west Africa, and even east Africa.
The United Nations' reaction to the situation has been less than satisfactory, and we must find a way to boost its activity in Africa, particularly west Africa. It is ironic that Nigeria, which has been suspended from the Commonwealth because it has not conducted itself in a democratic way—in fact, it is a military dictatorship—has restored democracy in Sierra Leone. We cannot avoid that curious turn of events; I am delighted by it, because I think that Nigeria is fundamentally a democracy and that the people of west Africa—indeed, of all Africa—acknowledge the ideas of democracy that respect the ordinary person's need to live his life with dignity, to earn his own living and to vote, and to control and bring his Government to account. That is an African as well as a European position.
We are right to support what has happened in Sierra Leone, which will need even more support than the Minister has suggested. I do not think that we have the capacity in Britain alone to support the new President in Sierra Leone; it must be an international effort. The effort must involve the United Nations, the European Union and the United States of America, and all donors, including the many excellent donors in the individual countries of Europe and elsewhere, such as the European development bank, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. I agree that the conditions that have to be applied to Sierra Leone in terms of the international financial institutions must be tailored to Sierra Leone's needs.
I do not endorse the cry of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for total debt forgiveness in Sierra Leone, because we must enhance and support a return of confidence in that country. We want not just international organisations but Sierra Leone people who are considering returning with their money to know that, if they invest in the country's future, their investment will not be wiped out but will be respected by the new democratic Government and repaid on time, with interest.
One cannot reassure people by simply writing off all the old debt. None the less, we must reorganise and negotiate to achieve something that has not been achieved in many countries. Undoubtedly some debt must be written off. We must enable the country to have a sustainable debt profile, which it can handle. That will induce confidence in the people in Sierra Leone, and encourage people living outside Sierra Leone, in many constituencies in this country, to return and invest their money.
We want them, with other groups of people, to set up businesses and start training, and thereby enhance and start to rebuild the economy. That will increase the


capacity of Sierra Leone to look after the poor, to educate, and to improve women and children's health. That will start to rebuild the vibrant society that we know Sierra Leone to be perfectly capable of achieving.
We must be careful how we tackle these problems. I know that the Minister knows these things. I have spoken to him and worked with him in many capacities, and I have confidence in him.[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I nearly said "my hon. Friend", because we are fellow warriors in this matter.

Mr. McNamara: On past occasions, when we shared a great common interest in overseas development, I was flattered to be addressed in that manner by the hon. Gentleman.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the western world should make a sustained effort to wipe out debt for most sub-Saharan countries, as a mark of the millennium, of the jubilee, of a new start for countries that have been especially exploited. That would be especially appropriate in the case of Sierra Leone, after the traumas that it has been through.
We should not expect a country of that size, with a population of 4.5 million people, to contemplate continuing a debt for which many of the people were not responsible, to carry forward something that would be an increasing burden on them. It is right and proper, if aid and help is given, if loans are made, that provision should be made for repayment and so on.
However, surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that part of the problem was that money was lent, and money was given in circumstances when no—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No sensible lender would have given that money in those circumstances, and the present population should not suffer for that. It is far better to start with a clean slate.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman's sentiments are entirely my own, but I want to sound a note of caution

about total write-off of debt, because I want confidence in Sierra Leone to be restored, by whatever method. We must stop those policies.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is an opportune time for me to intervene. Adjournment debates are an opportunity for Back Benchers to raise a matter with the Minister, and the Minister gives a reply. I know of the keen and long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in the question of overseas development, and I have allowed him to speak, but 1 thought that he would do so briefly, because the Minister has spoken; and the hon. Gentleman should have caught my eye before the Minister rose to reply to the debate.
With that in mind, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would perhaps wind up his remarks. I am sorry to do this, but, had he caught my eye before the Minister, I would have allowed him to make his case.

Mr. Wells: I do not think that you could have put that point more courteously and kindly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right, and I shall certainly conclude my remarks in the manner that you suggest. I understood that the debate could continue until 10.30 pm, and I thought that it would be beneficial to use that time discussing this matter. However, I certainly respect your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Members for Hull, North and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I shall have to find another occasion to discuss the complications and difficulties of resolving debt.
In conclusion, the whole House has expressed its concern to support the return of democracy to Sierra Leone. I welcome that very much. I hope that we can continue to express our concern and find tangible means in the immediate future—which the Minister outlined to the House—and even more ways in the medium and longer term, through the Commonwealth and through our international connections, to support the new democracy of Sierra Leone.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.